12-63 Weng v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A089 906 476 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER**  **FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER**  **IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY**  **ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 11 th** **day of September, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **ZHEN NI WENG,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 12-63** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael** 23 **Brown, New York, NY** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 26 **Attorney General; Keith I. McManus,** 27 **Senior Litigation Counsel; Catherine** 28 **B. Bye, Trial Attorney, Office of** 29**Immigration Litigation, Civil** 1 **Division, United States Department** 2 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Zhen Ni Weng seeks review of a December 15, 9 2011, order of the BIA affirming the June 24, 2010, decision 10 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying his 11 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 12 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhen Ni 13 Weng, No. A089 906 476 (B.I.A. Dec. 15, 2011), aff’gNo. 14 A089 906 476 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 24, 2010). We 15 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 16 and procedural history in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 19 Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 20 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 21 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 22 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 23

24

2Weng challenges the agency’s adverse credibility 1 determination. For asylum applications, such as this one, 2 governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the 3 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on 4 an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” 5 and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to 6 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 7 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 8 Weng challenges the IJ’s credibility finding 9 principally on the grounds that the “alleged 10 inconsistencies” were “perceived on the part of the IJ 11 rather than actual.” (Pet’r Br. at 8). The record, 12 however, supports the agency’s conclusion that Weng 13 testified inconsistently. Weng provided conflicting 14 testimony regarding the dates of his prior arrests, with 15 some discrepancies spanning several months to several years. 16 He also did not testify accurately about when his wife’s 17 abortion certificate was issued, and the fact that a 18 certificate was issued suggested that the abortion was 19 voluntary. The agency’s conclusion that the certificate did 20 not support Weng’s testimony was reasonable. 21

22

3Weng also argues that any inconsistencies should not be 1 held against him because he “possesses no formal education 2 and is illiterate.” (Id.at 9). The agency, however, was 3 not required to accept this explanation. See Majidi v. 4 Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must 5 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his 6 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 7 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled 8 to credit his testimony.” (emphasis in original; quotation 9 marks omitted)). 10 Together, Weng’s demeanor, inconsistent statements, and 11 inadequate corroborating evidence provide substantial 12 evidence to support the agency’s credibility determination. 13 See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 14 2007). Accordingly, the agency did not err in denying his 15 applications for relief. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 16 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 21 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for 22

4oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6 7 8

5