15-401 

Ma v. Lynch 

BIA 

Hom, IJ 

A200 933 655 

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 

22nd 4 day of April, two thousand sixteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 

9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 AI MIAN MA, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 15-401 

17 NAC 

18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New 

24 York. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

27 Assistant Attorney General; Jesse M. 

28 Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel; 
2 

1 Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, 

2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

3 United States Department of Justice, 

4 Washington, D.C. 

5 

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

9 DENIED. 

10 Petitioner Ai Mian Ma, a native and citizen of the People’s 

11 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 26, 2015, decision 

12 of the BIA affirming a March 6, 2013, decision of an Immigration 

13 Judge (“IJ”) denying Ma’s application for asylum, withholding 

14 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

15 (“CAT”). In re Ai Mian Ma, No. A200 933 655 (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 

16 2015), aff’g No. A200 933 655 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 6, 

17 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

18 facts and procedural history in this case. 

19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 

20 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 

21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 

22 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 

23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia 

24 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency 

25 may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base 
3 

1 a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum 

2 applicant’s statements and other record evidence “without 

3 regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s 

4 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 

5 at 163-64. 

6 In applying for asylum and related relief, Ma asserted that 

7 Chinese officials forced her to have an abortion under China’s 

8 family planning policy, and later detained and beat her for 

9 providing assistance at an unregistered church gathering held 

10 in her sister’s home. Substantial evidence supports the 

11 agency’s determination that Ma was not credible and failed to 

12 adequately corroborate her claims. 

13 The agency reasonably relied on discrepancies between Ma’s 

14 testimony and her written statement regarding whether she was 

15 using birth control when she became pregnant in violation of 

16 China’s family planning policy and whether officials 

17 immediately aborted her pregnancy or permitted her to return 

18 home for several days before forcibly taking her to the hospital 

19 for an abortion. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. Ma’s 

20 explanations for these discrepancies were not compelling. See 

21 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). Asylum 

22 applicants are not required to list every incident or provide 
4 

1 every detail in their asylum applications (such as the details 

2 surrounding when Ma was taken for her alleged forced abortion). 

3 See Pavlova v. INS, 441 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir. 2006). However, 

4 Ma’s explanation that she merely omitted detail was not 

5 compelling because her application included a detailed 

6 statement that devoted paragraphs to matters of less 

7 significance. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

8 Having questioned Ma’s credibility, the agency reasonably 

9 relied further on her failure to submit corroborating evidence 

10 sufficient to rehabilitate her testimony or independently 

11 satisfy her burden of proof. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 

12 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007); Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285 

13 (2d Cir. 2000). The agency reasonably declined to credit 

14 letters from Ma’s sisters because the letters were unsworn and 

15 prepared for litigation, and the authors were not available for 

16 cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332, 334 

17 (2d Cir. 2013). Regardless, those letters did not corroborate 

18 Ma’s claim that she was forced to have an abortion or her 

19 assertion that officials beat her. 

20 The agency also did not err in declining to credit Ma’s 

21 medical certificates as unauthenticated. See Xiao Ji Chen v. 

22 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006); In 
5 

1 re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215-16 & n.5 (B.I.A. 

2 2010), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 

3 677 F.3d 130, 133-38 (2d Cir. 2012). Moreover, the 

4 hand-written abortion certificate Ma submitted was issued seven 

5 years after the alleged abortion, and the handwritten medical 

6 certificate issued after her alleged beating was not 

7 accompanied by any medical examination records and did not 

8 indicate that her injuries were sustained as a result of a 

9 physical assault. 

10 Ultimately, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

11 findings that Ma’s testimony lacked credibility and that her 

12 evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate her testimony or 

13 independently satisfy her burden of proof. See Xiu Xia Lin, 

14 534 F.3d at 165-66; Diallo, 232 F.3d at 285. Those findings 

15 are dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 

16 relief because, other than the presumption of a well-founded 

17 fear of persecution that arises from demonstrating past 

18 persecution, Ma does not assert an independent basis to fear 

19 future harm in China. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B), 

20 1231(b)(3)(C); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b)-(c). 

21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 
6 

1 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

2 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

3 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

4 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

5 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 

6 34.1(b). 

7 FOR THE COURT: 

8 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk