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. 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 **22 nd**  **day of April, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **AI MIAN MA,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 15-401** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Gary J. Yerman, New York, New 23 York. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Jesse M. 27 Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel; 282 Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, D.C. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 8

DENIED. 9 Petitioner Ai Mian Ma, a native and citizen of the People’s 10 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 26, 2015, decision 11 of the BIA affirming a March 6, 2013, decision of an Immigration 12 Judge (“IJ”) denying Ma’s application for asylum, withholding 13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Ai Mian Ma , No. A200 933 655 (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 15 2015), aff’g No. A200 933 655 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 6, 16 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 17 facts and procedural history in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 19 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 21 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia 23 Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency 24 may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base 253 a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum 1 applicant’s statements and other record evidence “without 2 regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s 3 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d 4 at 163-64. 5 In applying for asylum and related relief, Ma asserted that 6 Chinese officials forced her to have an abortion under China’s 7 family planning policy, and later detained and beat her for 8 providing assistance at an unregistered church gathering held 9 in her sister’s home. Substantial evidence supports the 10 agency’s determination that Ma was no t credible and failed to 11 adequately corroborate her claims. 12 The agency reasonably relied on discrepancies between Ma’s 13 testimony and her written statement regarding whether she was 14 using birth control when she became pregnant in violation of 15 China’s family planning policy and whether officials 16 immediately aborted her pregnancy or permitted her to return 17 home for several days before forcibly taking her to the hospital 18 for an abortion. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-67. Ma’s 19 explanations for these discrepancies were not compelling. See 20 Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). Asylum 21 applicants are not required to list every incident or provide 224 every detail in their asylum applications (such as the details 1 surrounding when Ma was taken for her alleged forced abortion). 2 See Pavlova v. INS , 441 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir. 2006). However, 3 Ma’s explanation that she merely omitted detail was not 4 compelling because her application included a detailed 5 statement that devoted paragraphs to matters of less 6 significance. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. 7 Having questioned Ma’s credibility, the agency reasonably 8 relied further on her failure to submit corroborating evidence 9 sufficient to rehabilitate her testimony or independently 10 satisfy her burden of proof. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 11 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007); Diallo v. INS , 232 F.3d 279, 285 12 (2d Cir. 2000). The agency reasonably declined to credit 13 letters from Ma’s sisters because the letters were unsworn and 14 prepared for litigation, and the authors were not available for 15 cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332, 334 16 (2d Cir. 2013). Regardless, those letters did not corroborate 17 Ma’s claim that she was forced to have an abortion or her 18 assertion that officials beat her. 19 The agency also did not err in declining to credit Ma’s 20 medical certificates as unauthenticated. See Xiao Ji Chen v. 21 U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006); In 225 re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215-16 & n.5 (B.I.A. 1 2010), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder , 2 677 F.3d 130, 133-38 (2d Cir. 2012). Moreover, the 3 hand-written abortion certificate Ma submitted was issued seven 4 years after the alleged abortion, and the handwritten medical 5 certificate issued after her alleged beating was not 6 accompanied by any medical examination records and did not 7 indicate that her injuries were sustained as a result of a 8 physical assault. 9 Ultimately, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 10 findings that Ma’s testimony lacked credibility and that her 11 evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate her testimony or 12 independently satisfy her burden of proof. See Xiu Xia Lin , 13 534 F.3d at 165-66; Diallo , 232 F.3d at 285. Those findings 14 are dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 15 relief because, other than the presumption of a well-founded 16 fear of persecution that arises from demonstrating past 17 persecution, Ma does not assert an independent basis to fear 18 future harm in China. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B), 19 1231(b)(3)(C); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b)-(c). 20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 21 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 226 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 1 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 2 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 3 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 4 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 5 34.1(b). 6
FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 8