Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney * General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 08-4293 -ag Zhuv. Holder BIA Schopper t, IJ A95 716 389 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARYO RDER 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 1 day of February, two thousand ten. st 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges . 11 12

_______________________________________ 13 14 ZHI LING ZHU, also known as TSE LIN ZHU, 15 Petitioner , 16 17 v. 08-4293-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, * 21 Respondent . 22

_______________________________________ 23 24 252 1 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, 2 New York. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General; Michelle Gorden 6 Latour, Assistant Director; Tracie 7 N. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, United 9 States Department of Justice, 10 Washington, D.C. 11 1 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 5 is DENIED. 1 6 Zhi Ling Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s 1 7 Republic of China, seeks review of an August 11, 2008 order 1 8 of the BIA, affirming the May 17, 2007 decision of 1 9 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas Schoppert, which denied her 2 0 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 2 1 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhi 22 Ling Zhu , No. A95 716 389 (B.I.A. Aug. 11, 2008), aff’gNo. 2 3 A95 716 389 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 17, 2007). We assume 2 4 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 2 5 procedural history in this case. 2 6 “Where . . . the BIA agrees with the IJ’s conclusion 2 7 that a petitioner is not credible and, without rejecting any 2 8 of the IJ’s grounds for decision, emphasizes particular 2 9 aspects of that decision, we . . . review both the BIA’s and3 1 IJ’s opinions -- or more precisely, we review the IJ’s 2 decision including the portions not explicitly discussed by 3 the BIA.” Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d 4 Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings, 5 including adverse credibility findings, under the 6 substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 7 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 8 (2d Cir. 2008). 9 “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination 1 0 unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain 1 1 that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse 1 2 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. For 1 3 asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency 1 4 may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a 1 5 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the 1 6 plausibility of his or her account, and inconsistencies in 1 7 his or her statements, without regard to whether they go “to 1 8 the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 9 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 2 0 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 2 1 credibility determination. Indeed, the IJ reasonably relied 2 2 on the inconsistency between Zhu’s testimony that she had4 1 never been arrested and her statement during her credible 2 fear interview that she had been arrested for passing out 3 Christian information flyers. Moreover, there can be no 4 question as to the reliability of the record of Zhu’s 5 statements during her credible fear interview where she 6 admitted making such inconsistent statements. Cf. 7 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 179 (2d Cir. 2004) 8 (noting that where discrepancies and omissions arise in the 9 context of an applicant’s statements during an airport 1 0 interview, the agency and this Court must closely examine 1 1 the interview to ensure that it represents a “sufficiently 1 2 accurate record” of the applicant’s statements to merit 1 3 consideration in determining whether the applicant is 1 4 credible). Furthermore, the IJ reasonably declined to 1 5 credit Zhu’s explanation that her smuggler told her to 1 6 exaggerate her claim in order to obtain asylum, finding that 1 7 her exaggeration demonstrated her willingness to lie to 1 8 immigration officials. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 1 9 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). 2 0 Ultimately, because a reasonable fact-finder would not 2 1 be compelled to conclude to the contrary, the IJ’s adverse 2 2 credibility determination was supported by substantial5 1 evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-67. Thus, the 2 agency properly denied Zhu’s application for asylum, 3 withholding of removal, and CAT relief insofar as it was 4 based on her practice of Christianity in China because each 5 of these claims was based on the same factual predicate and 6 Zhu’s testimony as to the underlying facts was not credited 7 by the IJ. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 8 2006). 9 Additionally, the agency did not err in finding that 1 0 Zhu failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution 1 1 on account of her religious activities in the United States, 1 2 as she does not cite any evidence in the record that 1 3 supports her claim of such a fear. See Hongsheng Leng v. 14 Mukasey , 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[T]o establish a 1 5 well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any 1 6 evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some 1 7 showing that authorities in h[er] country of nationality are 1 8 either aware of h[er] activities or likely to become aware of h[er] activities.”). Therefore, the agencyreasonably 19 2 0 denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, 2 1 and CAT relief insofar as it was based on her practice of 2 2 Christianity in the United States. See Paul , 444 F.3d at 156. 236 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 3 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 7