1 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as indicated above. 2 1

- 6065 Zheng v. Garland BIA Poczter , IJ A 205 302 919 

### 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 for the Second 1 Circuit, held at the Thu rgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on th e 11 th da y of July , two thousand twenty

3 t hree

. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JOSEPH F. BIANCO , 7 WILLIAM J. NARDINI , 8 MYRNA PÉREZ
, 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 SA I HUA ZHENG , i 13 Petitioner , 14 15

v. 2 1

- 6065 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19Respondent

. 1

_____________________________________ 2 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General ; Anthony P. Nicastro , Assistant 6 Director; Jenny C. Lee, Trial Attorney, Office 7 of Immigration Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, D

. C. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11
DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED

. 12

Petitioner Sa i Hua Zheng , a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 13

China , seeks review of a J anuary 14 , 202 1 , decision of the BIA affirming a 14
September 6 , 2018 , decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying h er 15
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16
Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Sa i Hua Zheng , No. A 205 302 919 (B.I.A. J an. 14, 17

2021 ), aff’g No. A 205 302 919 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C

. Sept. 6 , 2018 ). We assume the 18

part ies’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19

We have reviewed the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 20

Homeland Sec

. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse credibility 21

determinations “under the substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao v. 22Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings of fact are 1
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclud e to 2
the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 4
trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between 5
the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral stat ements . . . , the consistency of such 6

statements with other evidence of record . . . , and any inaccuracies o r falsehoods 7
in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or 8
falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim , or any other relevant factor .” 9

Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, 10
from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder 11

could make such an adverse credibi lity ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 12
162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Here, s ubstantial 13
evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. 14
Zheng alleged that she was arrested and detained for attending an 15
underground Christian church in China, but her allegations of her injuries were 16

not consiste nt with a statement from her mother

. She testified that the police 17
slapped her , and her face was swollen and bruised. She also testified that she 18“di d not discover any” and had no memory of bruises other than those on her face. 1

Cert ified Admin. R

. 154

. But she submitted a letter in which her mother stated 2
that she could “hardly recognize” Zheng following her release because “her face 3

was red and swollen; her body was black and blue all over.” Cert ified Admin. R

. 4

282. The IJ was not required to accept Zheng’s explanation that she was “really 5
in a low mood” following her release, and “didn’t pay attention” to her injuries, 6

Cert ified Admin. R

. 154, because Zheng was able to discuss other injuries and 7
seemingly would have remembered if she was beaten rather than just slapped in 8

the face: to overcome an adverse credibility determination by the BIA before this 9

Court , “a petitioner must do more than off er a plausible explanation for . . . 10
inconsistent statements to secure relief; [s]he must demonstrate that a reasonable 11

fact

- finder would be compelled to credit h[er] testimony.” Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 12
F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) ( internal quotation marks omitted). 13
Zheng also testified that her mother told her that the police came looking 14

for Zheng a week after she left China; however, neither her application nor her 15
mother’s letter mentioned this fact. The omission of the police visit was material 16

to her fear of future harm and her claim that she was required to report to the 17
police after her release. Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 78 (“ [T] he probative value of a 18witness’s prior silence on particular facts depends on whether those facts are ones 1

the witnes s would reasonably have been expected to disclose

. ”). The IJ was not 2
required to accept Zheng’s explanation that the omissi on was a result of her and 3

her mother’s lack of education. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. 4
Zheng failed to rehabilitate her testimony w ith reliable corroboration. “ An 5
applicant’s failure to corroborate

. . . her testimony may bear on credibility, 6
because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to 7
rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question. ” Biao Yang v. 8

Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Zheng’s only evidence that the events 9

in China occurred were the letters from her mother and a friend who alleged that 10
she saw Zheng following her release from detention. Zheng’s mother’s letter 11

contained information that was not in Zheng’s written statement , and the agency 12
was not required to give weight to either document

. See Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 13

324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) ( “We generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of the 14
weight to be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence

. ” ) ; Likai Gao v. Barr, 15
968 F.3d 137, 149 (2d Cir. 2020) (concluding that “ the IJ acted within her discretion 16
in according .

. . little weight” t o letters from applicant’s wife and friend “because 17
the declarants (particularly [the applicant’s] wife) were interested parties and 18neither was available for cross

- examination”). In addition, Zheng alleged that 1
she attended church regularly in the United States , but she documented 2
attendance only in 2014, despite testifying that she had documentation for other 3
years between that time and her hearing in 2018

. See Wei Sun v. Sessions , 883 F.3d 4
23, 31 (2d Cir. 2018) (“[T]he alien bears the ultimate burden o f introducing . . . 5
evidence without prompting from the IJ.” ( internal quotation marks omitted)). 6

The inconsistenc ies , omission s , and lack of corroboration provide 7
substantial evidence for the adverse credibility determinatio n. See Xiu Xia Lin , 8

534 F.3d at 167. The adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 9
withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on the 10
same factual predicate s

. S ee Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 11
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED

. All pending 12
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 13

FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 15 Clerk of Court 16 17