Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure * 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 08 -48 01 -ag Jiang v . Hold er BI A A bra m s, IJ A 200 114 550 

### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MAR Y O RDE R

RULIN G S B Y SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRI E F O R O T H E R P A PER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDI X OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN A N E L E C T R O N IC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHO UT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 20 day of November, two thousand nine. th
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge,

REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges
.

_______________________________________ JING YUN JIANG,

Petitioner ,

v. 08-4801-ag NAC ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, * UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Respondent
.

______________________________________2

FOR PETITIONER: Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, Kristin A. Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPO N D U E C O N S I D E R A T I O N o f t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w of a Board of Immigration Appeal s (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
DENIED. Petitioner Jing Yun Jiang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the September 8, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the November 30, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief u n d er the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jing Yun Jiang , No. A 200 114 550 ( B . I . A . Sept. 8, 2008), aff’gNo. A 200 114 550 (Immig.
Ct. N.Y. C i t y N ov. 30, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. When the BIA agrees with the IJ’s conclusi o n t h at a petitioner is not credible and, without rejecting any of the3

IJ’s grounds for decision, emphasizes particular aspects of that decisi o n , we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review t h e agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of law and the app l i c a t ion of law to undisputed fact. See Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). Jiang does not challenge the IJ’s findings that: (1) her testimony was internally inconsistent regarding why she failed to tell U.S. border patrol agents that she was persecuted on account of her F a lun Gong activities in China; (2) her testimony regarding the date when she distributed Falun Gong flyers was inconsistent with the documentary evidence that she submitted in support of he r a s ylum application; (3) her testimony was internally inconsistent regarding her Falun Gong activity in the United States; (4) her testimony was internally inconsistent regarding whether she distributed Falun Gong flyers; and (5) there were discrepancies between her testimony and the documentary e v i d e n ce she submitted. Thus, she has waived any challenge to those findings, Yueqing4

Z h a n gv . G o n z a les , 4 2 6 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005), which constitute substantial evidence f o r t he IJ’s adverse credibility determination, see Shunfu Li v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 141, 146-147 (2d Cir. 2008). With respect to the findings th at Jiang does challenge, each w a s p r o p e r . S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e I J ’s findings that: (1) Jiang’s testimony tha t she was beaten by the police was implausible; (2) there was a discrepancy within Ji a n g ’ s t e s t i m o n y a n d b e t w e e n h e r t e s t i m o n y a n d the documentary evidence she sub m itted regarding her ability to practice Falun Gong; (3) Jiang provided inconsistent testimony regarding when she allegedly received Falun Gong materials in China; (4) Jiang provided evasive and implausible testimony regarding the location where she allegedly distributed Falun Gong flyers. While Jiang offered explanations b e f ore the agency that were responsive t o each of these findings, the
agency did not err in rejecting them. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Having called Jiang’s testim ony into question, the IJ properly noted the a b s e n ce of corroborative evidence that could have rehabilitated her testimony. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006). Ultimately, substantial evidence supported the IJ’s5

adverse credibility determination
. T h us, the IJ properly denied Jiang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because the only evidence that she would be persecuted or tortured depended on her credibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). For the foregoing re a s ons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in t h i s petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk By:___________________________