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.

08-4801-ag

Jiang v. Holder

BIA

Abrams, IJ

A 200 114 550

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY 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 BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER 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 APPENDIX 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 AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT 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.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals (“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 under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jing Yun Jiang, No. A 200 114

550 (B.I.A. Sept. 8, 2008), aff’g No. A 200 114 550 (Immig.

Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 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 conclusion that a

petitioner is not credible and, without rejecting any of the
3

IJ’s grounds for decision, emphasizes particular aspects of

that decision, 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 the 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 application 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 Falun 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 her asylum 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 evidence she submitted.

Thus, she has waived any challenge to those findings, Yueqing
4

Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir.

2005), which constitute substantial evidence for the IJ’s

adverse credibility determination, see Shunfu Li v. Mukasey,

529 F.3d 141, 146-147 (2d Cir. 2008). 

With respect to the findings that Jiang does challenge,

each was proper. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s

findings that: (1) Jiang’s testimony that she was beaten by

the police was implausible; (2) there was a discrepancy within

Jiang’s testimony and between her testimony and the

documentary evidence she submitted 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 before the

agency that were responsive to 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 testimony into question, the IJ

properly noted the absence 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’s
5

adverse credibility determination. Thus, 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 reasons, 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 this 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:___________________________