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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **16 th**  **day of July, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **YONGWEN ZHU,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 14-585** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1**  19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York. 23 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 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 1 Attorney General; Katharine E. 2 Clark, Senior Litigation Counsel; 3 Christina J. Martin, Trial Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 U.S. Department of Justice, 6 Washington, D.C. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 11

DENIED. 12 Petitioner Yongwen Zhu, a native and citizen of the 13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 4, 2014, 14 decision of the BIA affirming a March 27, 2012, decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhu’s application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 17 Torture (“CAT”). In re Yongwen Zhu, No. A200 753 724 (B.I.A. 18 Feb. 4, 2014), aff’g No. A200 753 724 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 19 27, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 21 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 22 decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 23 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 243 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see 1 also Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 Zhu did not challenge the pretermission of his asylum 3 application as untimely, and explicitly waives his CAT claim 4 before this Court; accordingly, we address only Zhu’s challenge 5 to the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. 6 For applications such as Zhu’s, governed by the REAL ID Act 7 of 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the 8 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an applicant’s 9 “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness” and inconsistencies in 10 his statements, so long as they reasonably support an inference 11 that he is not credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see 12 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). We 13 defer “to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the 14 totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable 15 fact-finder could make such an adve rse credibility ruling.” 16 Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. 17 Zhu claimed that he was arrested on June 28, 2009, and 18 released on July 2, 2009, when his parents paid a fine. With 19 his application, Zhu submitted various records from China, 204 including a detention certificate stating that he was detained 1 for disturbing the social order; a fine notice stating that he 2 was fined because of his participation in an underground 3 Catholic church; a fine certificate noting that Zhu had been 4 fined and paid the fine; and a fine receipt also showing that 5 Zhu had paid a fine. Zhu testified inconsistently about what 6 documents he received from officials, when he received them, 7 and if they were given to him or his mother. He testified at 8 one point that his mother had lost one of the documents, but 9 the document in question was part of the administrative record. 10 In short, Zhu’s testimony made clear that he was unaware of what 11 documents had been submitted to the immigration court, and what 12 those documents said. Further, Zhu was inconsistent as to when 13 he went into hiding after his release from detention, why he 14 went into hiding, and when officials visited his home while he 15 was hiding. 16 Substantial evidence thus supports the IJ’s adverse 17 credibility determination, based on Zhu’s non-responsive and 18 inconsistent testimony. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 19 Moreover, Zhu does not challenge the finding that his testimony 205 was inconsistent, but argues that his inconsistent answers 1 resulted from “confusion.” He elaborates no further, and his 2 explanation does not “demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder 3 would be compelled to credit his testimony.” Majidi v. 4 Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d C ir. 2005) (internal quotations 5 omitted). 6 Zhu argues that the IJ erred because she failed to explain 7 why the independent evidence in the record did not rehabilitate 8 his credibility. He specifically points to a medical record 9 stating that he was an outpatient at Fuzhou City Health Center 10 on July 2, 2009. However, the IJ noted that she had considered 11 the medical record and gave it limited weight because it had 12 not been proven to be reliable. The weight afforded to an 13 applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely 14 within the discretion of the agency. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t 15 of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). Zhu also argues 16 that the detention certificate, fine notice, fine certificate, 17 and fine receipt prove that he w as detained in China on account 18 of his religious activity. However, the IJ reasonably gave 19 these documents limited weight because Zhu was unfamiliar with 206 their content, and could not explain when or where he received 1 them. 2 Finally, Zhu argues that even assuming he was not credible 3 as to his claim of past persecution, the IJ erred because she 4 accepted that Zhu was a practicing Catholic but did not consider 5 whether he had an independent well-founded fear of future 6 persecution on that basis. However, the IJ specifically stated 7 that even if Zhu was “a practicing Catholic in the United States, 8 that alone is insufficient to show that he has a well-founded 9 fear of future persecution,” based on an analysis of the country 10 conditions evidence in the record. 11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12

DENIED. 13
FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15