11-4846 Jiang v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A087 464 767 

### 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 27 th** **day of March, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges **.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **LIANG JIE JIANG,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 11-4846** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael** 23 **Brown, New York, New York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 26 **Attorney General; Thomas B.** 27 **Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel;** 28 **Arthur L. Rabin, Attorney, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, United** 30 **States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington, D.C.** 32UPON 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 petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Liang Jie Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s 5 Republic of China, seeks review of a November 9, 2011, 6 decision of the BIA affirming the April 14, 2010, decision 7 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide, which denied 8 his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 9 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Liang Jie Jiang, No. A087 464 767 (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 2011), 11 aff’gNo. A087 464 767 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 14, 2010). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 16 Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 19 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because Jiang does not 20 challenge the denial of CAT relief, we address only asylum 21 and withholding of removal. 22

23 2For applications such as Jiang’s, governed by the 1 amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by 2 the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the 3 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on 4 the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 5 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his 6 statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart 7 of the . . . claim.” See8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 1231(b)(3)(C); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d 9 Cir. 2008). We will “defer to an IJ’s credibility 10 determination unless, from the totality of the 11 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 12 could make” such a ruling. Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. 13 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 14 substantial evidence

. 15 The IJ reasonably based his credibility finding on 16 Jiang’s inconsistent testimony and inconsistencies among his 17 testimony, his brother’s testimony, and the documentary 18 evidence. See8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 19 1231(b)(3)(C); Xiu Xia Lin,534 F.3d at 167. Indeed, the 20 record reflects that: (1) Jiang’s testimony that he had 21 practiced Falun Gong in his brother’s home was contrary to 22

3both his later testimony that he had never visited his 1 brother’s house and his brother’s testimony that he (Jiang) 2 had practiced only in his own apartment and the park; 3 (2) his testimony that he had moved to Guang Hui number 251 4 and had gone into hiding at his sister-in-law’s house was 5 contrary to his earlier testimony that he had not moved from 6 number 102 and his household registration booklet that 7 reflected only the 102 address; (3) his testimony that he 8 and his wife moved in 2005 to the 102 address contradicted 9 the 2007 date listed in his household registration booklet; 10 (4) his testimony that he had obtained the registration 11 booklet while he was in China, conflicted with the issuance 12 date listed on the booklet and his later testimony that his 13 wife obtained the booklet; and (5) his brother’s testimony 14 that the photographs of him practicing Falun Gong were taken 15 in summer conflicted with his own testimony that they were 16 taken in January and the photographs themselves which 17 reflected that they were taken during fall or winter. The 18 agency did not err in relying on these inconsistencies in 19 making an adverse credibility determination. See8 U.S.C. 20 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C); Xiu Xia Lin,534 F.3d 21 at 167 (providing that an IJ may support an adverse 22

4credibility determination with “any inconsistency or 1 omission”). 2 Moreover, the IJ reasonably rejected Jiang’s 3 explanations for his inconsistent testimony, specifically 4 that he was nervous or “blank[ed] out,” because they did not 5 resolve how he gave detailed yet contradictory testimony

. 6 See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). 7 In addition, the adverse credibility determination is 8 further supported by the IJ’s demeanor finding based on 9 Jiang’s evasive testimony. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of 10 Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006)

. 11 The IJ also reasonably relied on Jiang’s failure to 12 submit sufficient corroborating evidence that Chinese family 13 planning officials had forcibly aborted his wife’s pregnancy 14 and fined his wife when Jiang submitted only an abortion 15 certificate from the government and no medical records 16 showing that his wife had been pregnant and had undergone an 17 abortion. See Chuilu Liu v. Holder , 575 F.3d 193, 198 n.5 18 (2d Cir. 2009) (the agency may rely on an applicant’s 19 failure to provide convincing corroborating evidence in 20 making an adverse credibility determination). 21 Given these inconsistencies, the negative demeanor 22 finding, and the lack of corroboration, the totality of the 23 5circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility 1 determination. See8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 2 Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. Because the only evidence of a threat 3 to Jiang’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility, 4 the adverse credibility determination in this case also 5 necessarily precludes success on his claim for withholding 6 of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d 7 Cir. 2006). 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 16
FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 18

6