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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 15th 4 day of April, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

9 PETER W. HALL,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 ZHUN ZHENG,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 12-4747

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Leslie McKay, Assistant

27 Director; Allison Frayer, Trial

28 Attorney, Civil Division, Office of

29 Immigration Litigation, United

30 States Department of Justice,

31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is

3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for

4 review is DENIED.

5 Zhun Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s

6 Republic of China, seeks review of a November 8, 2012, order

7 of the BIA affirming the January 24, 2011, decision of

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Randa Zagzoug denying his

9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re

11 Zhun Zheng, No. A087 759 378 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 2012), aff’g

12 No. A087 759 378 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 24, 2011). We

13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

14 and procedural history of this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

16 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen

17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The

18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8

19 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562

20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

21 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that

22 Zheng’s testimony was not credible. The agency’s adverse

23 credibility determination is supported by substantial

2
1 evidence: demeanor, omissions, and failure to corroborate. 

2 See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.

3 2008).

4 Demeanor. The IJ found that Zheng’s demeanor called

5 his credibility into question, a finding that commands

6 “particular weight.” Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81

7 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). And the agency was not compelled to

8 accept Zheng’s explanation for his demeanor. Id. at 80.

9 Omissions. Zheng omitted from his asylum application a

10 number of significant events, including a near-drowning that

11 inspired his conversion to Christianity, his seeking of

12 medical attention after he was arrested and beaten, and

13 authorities’ continued search for him in China. See Li Hua

14 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.

15 2006) (“We can be still more confident in our review of

16 observations about an applicant’s demeanor where, as here,

17 they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent

18 testimony.”). Moreover, Zheng was unable to explain

19 convincingly why he was not baptized in China. 

20 Corroboration. The determination is further supported

21 by the lack of reliable corroboration. See Biao Yang v.

22 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency did

3
1 not err in assigning limited or no weight to Zheng’s

2 supporting evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of

3 Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006) (“[t]he weight to

4 afford to [an asylum applicant’s] evidence lies largely

5 within the discretion of the IJ.” ((internal quotation marks

6 and alterations omitted)). Zheng sought to corroborate his

7 attendance at a church in the United States with a

8 certificate presented at the hearing, but he did not provide

9 testimony from a church official, or testimony or other

10 evidence from his father or the friend who introduced him to

11 the church. Zheng presented unsigned, uncorroborated

12 evidence of his church attendance in China, which appeared

13 to have been prepared for the hearing, and was unable to

14 name the author of the document even though he testified the

15 individual had been the leader of his church in China. See

16 Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214 & n.5

17 (BIA 2010) (rejecting an unauthenticated document obtained

18 for the purposes of the hearing), overruled in part on other

19 grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.

20 2012). Finally, letters from Zheng’s mother and friend were

21 properly afforded limited weight given the other problems

22 with Zheng’s credibility. Id. at 215; Qin Wen Zheng v.

23 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2007).

4
1 Because Zheng’s withholding of removal and CAT claims

2 depend on the same factual predicate as the asylum claim,

3 the agency’s adverse credibility determination is also

4 dispositive of those forms of relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,

5 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.

6 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005). 

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

13 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

14 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 

15 FOR THE COURT: 

16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

17

18

5