20

- 1593 Xiaojie v. Garland BIA S egal , IJ A 205 979 908 

### 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 Thu rgood Marshall**  2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 7**  **t h**  **d ay of**  **D e**  **c e**  **m b**  **e r**  **, two thousand twenty**

  4 ** two**

**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  8 **MYRNA PÉREZ ,**  9 **ALISON J. NATHAN ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **JIANG XIAOJIE ,**  **AKA XIOJIE JIANG,** 14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 20** 

**- 1593**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  19 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER** : Farah Loftus , Esq. , Sherman Oaks, 24 CA. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Bryan Boynton , Acting Assistant 27 Attorney Genera l; Anthony C. 282 Payne, Assistant Director, Judith 1 R. O’Sullivan , Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 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 8

is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Jiang Xiaojie , a native and citi zen of the 10
People’s Republic of Ch ina , seeks review of an April 28, 2020, 11

decision of the BIA affirming a June 14 , 2018 , decision of an 12
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying h is application for asylum, 13
withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention 14
Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In r e Jiang Xiaojie , No. A 205 979 15

908 (B.I.A. Apr

. 28 , 2020 ) , aff’g No. A205 979 908 (Immig. 16

Ct. N.Y. City June 14 , 2018 )

. We assume the parties’ 17
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18

We have review ed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 19
“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 20

Homeland Sec

. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 21
adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, 22
see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), 233 and we treat the agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive 1
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 2

conclude to the con trary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3

While we apply a deferential standard of review to an 4
IJ’s credibility determination , “ [w] e must assess whether the 5
agency has provided specific, cogent reasons for the adverse 6
credibility finding and whether those reasons bear a 7
legitimate nexus to the finding.” Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 8

77 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. 9

“Co nsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all 10
relevant facts, a trier of fact may base a credibility 11
determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 12
or witness’s written and oral statements . . . the consistency 13

of such statements wit h other evidence of record . . . and 14
any inaccuracies o r falsehoods in such statements, without 15
regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood 16
goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim

. . . .” 8 U.S.C. 17

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 18

Substantial e vidence here supports the agency’s adverse 19
credibility determination. 204 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies related 1

to the sole basis of Xiaojie’s claim s , his alleged two

- week 2
detention for attending an underground Christian church. See 3

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Xiaojie’s and his sister’s 4
testimony were inconsistent as to whether his sister visited 5
him while he was detained, whether their mother visited him 6

in detention, who told his sister he was detained , when she 7
learned of that detention (before or after his release), who 8
told their mother to pay bond for his release, and whether 9

his sister knew th at individual. These inconsistencies 10
provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility 11
finding because they undermine Xiaojie’s claim that he was 12

detained, which is the sole basis for his claim s for relief

. 13

See Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 14

20 20)(“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien 15
from showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible. 16
Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more 17
forcefully.”). Xiaojie’s argument that the inconsistencies 18

are minor fails because the agency “may rely on any 19
inconsistency” where, as here, “the ‘totality of the 20
circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not 215 credible.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d 1

Cir. 2008) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) )). 2
While CAT relief and withholding of removal may be 3
available notwithstanding an adverse credibility ruling as to 4
asylum, t he adverse credibility determination is dispositive 5
of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all 6

three claims were ba sed on the same factual predicate. S ee 7

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

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006)

. 8
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9
DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 10

stays VACATED. 11

FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 13 Clerk of Court 14