18

- 2429 Zheng v. Barr BIA Thompson , IJ A 206 560 263 

### 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 3**  **r d**  **da y of**  **S e**  **p t**  **e m**  **b e**  **r , two thousand**  **twenty .**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER ,**  7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  8 **RICHARD J. SULLIVAN ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **XINGCHI ZHENG ,**  13 **P etitioner**  **,** 14 15
**v. 18** 
**- 2429**  16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR ,**  **UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  19 **R espondent**  **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Zhen Liang Li, New York , NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H . Hunt , Assistant 25 Attorney General; Anthony P. 26 Nicastro, Assistant Director ; 27 Tracey N. McDonald , Trial 28 Attorney , Office of Immigration 29 Litigation , United States 30 Department of Justice, Washington, 31 DC. 322 U PON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 3

is DENIED. 4

Petitioner Xingchi Zheng , a native and citizen of the 5
People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a July 25, 201 8 6
decision of the BIA affirming a September 7 , 2017 decision of 7

an I mmigration Judge (“IJ”) d enying his application for 8
asylum, withholding of removal , and relief under the 9
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xingchi Zheng , No. 10

A 206 560 263 (B.I.A. July 25 , 2018 ), aff’g No. A 206 560 263 11
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 7 , 2017 ). We assume the parties’ 12
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedur al his tory. 13
Under the circumstances, we have consider ed both the IJ’s 14
and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 15
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 16
Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 17

est ablished. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 18

Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 19
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 20
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 213 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 1
the applicant or witness,

. . . the consistency between the 2
applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 3
[and] the internal consistency of each such statement . . . 4
without regard to whether an inconsistency, in accuracy, or 5
falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim

. . .” 6

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. 7
Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 163

– 64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial 8
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zheng was 9

not cred ible as to his claim that he suffered a head injury 10
in a scuffle with a family planning official and was detained 11
and beaten by police for attempting to stop officials from 12
taking his wife to have an abortion

. 13
The agency reasonably relied in part on Zheng’s 14
demeanor, noting that he was vague and un responsive when 15

confronted with certain inconsisten cies in his evidence

. 16

S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Li Hua Lin v. 17
U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006) (“We 18

can be still more confident in our review of observations 19
about an applicant’s demeanor where . . . they are 20
supported by specific examples of inconsistent 214 testimony.”). The agency also reasonably relied on Zheng’s 1

i nconsistent evidence regarding when his wife’s abortion 2

certificate was issued in relation to his detention and 3
payment of a family planning fine and regarding when he saw 4

his brother after arriving in the United States. Nor did 5

the agency err in relying on the omission of Zheng’s head 6
injury from his family’s corroborating letters

. See 7

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) ; see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 8

F.3d at 167 ( upholding adverse credibility determination 9
where IJ relied on omissions by third parties ). Zheng did 10
not compelling ly explain these record inconsistencies. See 11
Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005)

. 12
Having questioned Zheng’s credibility, the agency 13
reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his 14
testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. “An 15
applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may 16
bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in 17
general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony 18
that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. 19

Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency 20
reasonably declined to credit the letters from Zheng’s family 215 members b ecause, as discussed above, they failed to mention 1
Zheng’s head injury , and further , the aut hor s were interested 2

witnesses who were not available for cross

- examination. See 3

Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We 4
generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to 5
be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence.”); see also 6

In re H

- L

- H

- & Z

- Y

- Z

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A. 2010) 7
(finding that letters from alien’ s friends and family were 8
insufficient to provide substantial support for alien’s 9
claims because they were from interested witnesses not 10
subject to cross

- examination), overruled on other grounds by 11
Hui Lin Huang v. Holder , 677 F.3d 130, 133

– 38 (2d Cir. 201 2). 12

Given the demeanor, inconsistency , and corroboration 13
findings , the agency’s adverse credibility determination is 14
supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. 15

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination was dispositive of 16
asylum, withholding of remo val, and CAT relief because all 17

three forms of relief were based on the same factual 18
predicate

. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d 19
Cir. 2006). 20

216 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED . All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2

stays VACATED. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe , 5 Clerk of Court 6