14-585 

Zhu v. Lynch

BIA 

Zagzoug, IJ 

A200 753 724

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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY 

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

16th 4 day of July, two thousand fifteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 YONGWEN ZHU, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 14-585 

17 NAC 

18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,1 19 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York. 

24 

 

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney 

General Lorette E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney 

General Eric H. Holder, Jr. as Respondent. 
2

1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 

2 Attorney General; Katharine E. 

3 Clark, Senior Litigation Counsel; 

4 Christina J. Martin, Trial Attorney, 

5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

6 U.S. Department of Justice, 

7 Washington, D.C. 

8 

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

12 DENIED. 

13 Petitioner Yongwen Zhu, a native and citizen of the 

14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 4, 2014, 

15 decision of the BIA affirming a March 27, 2012, decision of an 

16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhu’s application for asylum, 

17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

18 Torture (“CAT”). In re Yongwen Zhu, No. A200 753 724 (B.I.A. 

19 Feb. 4, 2014), aff’g No. A200 753 724 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 

20 27, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

21 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

22 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 

23 decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 

24 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 
3

1 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see 

2 also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 

3 Zhu did not challenge the pretermission of his asylum 

4 application as untimely, and explicitly waives his CAT claim 

5 before this Court; accordingly, we address only Zhu’s challenge 

6 to the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. 

7 For applications such as Zhu’s, governed by the REAL ID Act 

8 of 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the 

9 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an applicant’s 

10 “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness” and inconsistencies in 

11 his statements, so long as they reasonably support an inference 

12 that he is not credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see 

13 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). We 

14 defer “to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the 

15 totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable 

16 fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” 

17 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 

18 Zhu claimed that he was arrested on June 28, 2009, and 

19 released on July 2, 2009, when his parents paid a fine. With 

20 his application, Zhu submitted various records from China, 
4

1 including a detention certificate stating that he was detained 

2 for disturbing the social order; a fine notice stating that he 

3 was fined because of his participation in an underground 

4 Catholic church; a fine certificate noting that Zhu had been 

5 fined and paid the fine; and a fine receipt also showing that 

6 Zhu had paid a fine. Zhu testified inconsistently about what 

7 documents he received from officials, when he received them, 

8 and if they were given to him or his mother. He testified at 

9 one point that his mother had lost one of the documents, but 

10 the document in question was part of the administrative record. 

11 In short, Zhu’s testimony made clear that he was unaware of what 

12 documents had been submitted to the immigration court, and what 

13 those documents said. Further, Zhu was inconsistent as to when 

14 he went into hiding after his release from detention, why he 

15 went into hiding, and when officials visited his home while he 

16 was hiding. 

17 Substantial evidence thus supports the IJ’s adverse 

18 credibility determination, based on Zhu’s non-responsive and 

19 inconsistent testimony. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

20 Moreover, Zhu does not challenge the finding that his testimony 
5

1 was inconsistent, but argues that his inconsistent answers 

2 resulted from “confusion.” He elaborates no further, and his 

3 explanation does not “demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder 

4 would be compelled to credit his testimony.” Majidi v. 

5 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotations 

6 omitted). 

7 Zhu argues that the IJ erred because she failed to explain 

8 why the independent evidence in the record did not rehabilitate 

9 his credibility. He specifically points to a medical record 

10 stating that he was an outpatient at Fuzhou City Health Center 

11 on July 2, 2009. However, the IJ noted that she had considered 

12 the medical record and gave it limited weight because it had 

13 not been proven to be reliable. The weight afforded to an 

14 applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely 

15 within the discretion of the agency. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t 

16 of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). Zhu also argues 

17 that the detention certificate, fine notice, fine certificate, 

18 and fine receipt prove that he was detained in China on account 

19 of his religious activity. However, the IJ reasonably gave 

20 these documents limited weight because Zhu was unfamiliar with 
6

1 their content, and could not explain when or where he received 

2 them. 

3 Finally, Zhu argues that even assuming he was not credible 

4 as to his claim of past persecution, the IJ erred because she 

5 accepted that Zhu was a practicing Catholic but did not consider 

6 whether he had an independent well-founded fear of future 

7 persecution on that basis. However, the IJ specifically stated 

8 that even if Zhu was “a practicing Catholic in the United States, 

9 that alone is insufficient to show that he has a well-founded 

10 fear of future persecution,” based on an analysis of the country 

11 conditions evidence in the record. 

12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

13 DENIED. 

14 FOR THE COURT: 

15 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk