12-4747 Zheng v. Holder BIA A087 759 378 

### 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 15 th** **day of April, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 8 **PETER W. HALL,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **ZHUN ZHENG,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 12-4747** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Leslie McKay, Assistant** 26 **Director; Allison Frayer, Trial** 27 **Attorney, Civil Division, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, United** 29 **States Department of Justice,** 30 **Washington, D.C.** 31UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 2 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 3 review is DENIED. 4 Zhun Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s 5 Republic of China, seeks review of a November 8, 2012, order 6 of the BIA affirming the January 24, 2011, decision of 7 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Randa Zagzoug denying his 8 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re 10 Zhun Zheng, No. A087 759 378 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 2012), aff’g 11 No. A087 759 378 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 24, 2011). We 12 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history of this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA.See Yan Chen 16 v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well-established. See8 18 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 19 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that 21 Zheng’s testimony was not credible. The agency’s adverse 22 credibility determination is supported by substantial 23 2evidence: demeanor, omissions, and failure to corroborate. 1 See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2 2008). 3

Demeanor . The IJ found that Zheng’s demeanor called 4 his credibility into question, a finding that commands 5 “particular weight.” Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 81 6 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). And the agency was not compelled to 7 accept Zheng’s explanation for his demeanor. Id.at 80. 8 Omissions . Zheng omitted from his asylum application a 9 number of significant events, including a near-drowning that 10 inspired his conversion to Christianity, his seeking of 11 medical attention after he was arrested and beaten, and 12 authorities’ continued search for him in China. See Li Hua 13 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 14 2006) (“We can be still more confident in our review of 15 observations about an applicant’s demeanor where, as here, 16 they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent 17 testimony.”). Moreover, Zheng was unable to explain 18 convincingly why he was not baptized in China. 19 Corroboration . The determination is further supported 20 by the lack of reliable corroboration. See Biao Yang v. 21 Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency did 22

3not err in assigning limited or no weight to Zheng’s 1 supporting evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of 2 Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006) (“[t]he weight to 3 afford to [an asylum applicant’s] evidence lies largely 4 within the discretion of the IJ.” ((internal quotation marks 5 and alterations omitted)). Zheng sought to corroborate his 6 attendance at a church in the United States with a 7 certificate presented at the hearing, but he did not provide 8 testimony from a church official, or testimony or other 9 evidence from his father or the friend who introduced him to 10 the church. Zheng presented unsigned, uncorroborated 11 evidence of his church attendance in China, which appeared 12 to have been prepared for the hearing, and was unable to 13 name the author of the document even though he testified the 14 individual had been the leader of his church in China. See 15 Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214 & n.5 16 (BIA 2010) (rejecting an unauthenticated document obtained 17 for the purposes of the hearing), overruled in part on other 18 grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 19 2012). Finally, letters from Zheng’s mother and friend were 20 properly afforded limited weight given the other problems 21 with Zheng’s credibility. Id.at 215; Qin Wen Zheng v. 22 Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2007). 23 4Because Zheng’s withholding of removal and CAT claims 1 depend on the same factual predicate as the asylum claim, 2 the agency’s adverse credibility determination is also 3 dispositive of those forms of relief. See Paul v. Gonzales , 4 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006);Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 5 Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 10 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 13 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 14
FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16 17 18

5