17-4103 

Chen v. Barr 

BIA 

Leeds, IJ 

A206 067 415 

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.

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 20th 4 day of November, two thousand nineteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

8 REENA RAGGI, 

9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 XUEJIAO CHEN, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 17-4103 

17 NAC 

18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, Flushing, NY. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

26 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 

27 Assistant Director; Rebecca 

28 Hoffberg Phillips, Trial Attorney, 

29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

30 United States Department of 

31 Justice, Washington, DC. 
2 

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

4 is DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Xuejiao Chen, a native and citizen of the 

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 5, 

7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a March 6, 2017, decision 

8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for 

9 asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the 

10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xuejiao Chen, No. 

11 A206 067 415 (B.I.A. Dec. 5, 2017), aff’g No. A206 067 415 

12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 6, 2017). We assume the parties’ 

13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

14 in this case. 

15 Chen raises only withholding of removal and CAT relief 

16 in this Court. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s 

17 decisions denying relief on credibility grounds. See 

18 Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 

19 applicable standards of review are well established. See

20 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 

21 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 

22 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 
3 

1 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 

2 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 

3 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the 

4 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 

5 [and] the internal consistency of each such statement . . . 

6 without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or 

7 falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim . . . .” 

8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 

9 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence 

10 supports the agency’s determination that Chen was not 

11 credible as to her claim that police detained and beat her on 

12 account of her Falun Gong practice and that she continues to 

13 practice Falun Gong in the United States. 

14 The agency reasonably relied in part on Chen’s demeanor, 

15 noting that her testimony was evasive. See 8 U.S.C. 

16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 

17 (2d Cir. 2005) (recognizing that particular deference is 

18 given to the trier of fact’s assessment of demeanor). The 

19 demeanor finding is supported by the record, which reflects 

20 that Chen repeatedly avoided answering questions the answers 

21 to which would have been detrimental to her application. 

22 The demeanor finding and overall credibility 
4 

1 determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies. See 

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

3 Cir. 2006). Chen testified inconsistently and ultimately 

4 admitted lying about her state of residence in the United 

5 States. Further, Chen and her witnesses testified 

6 inconsistently about Chen’s practice of Falun Gong. These 

7 inconsistencies were not compellingly explained. See 

8 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

9 Having questioned Chen’s credibility, the agency 

10 reasonably relied further on her failure to submit reliable 

11 corroborating evidence. “An applicant’s failure to 

12 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, 

13 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an 

14 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already 

15 been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 

16 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Chen did not corroborate 

17 medical treatment she received in China for either the 

18 chronic health issues that purportedly prompted her to 

19 practice Falun Gong or for the harm she claimed to have 

20 suffered in detention. Nor did she submit evidence that 

21 her parents had paid a fine to secure her release from 

22 detention. As to the documentation she did produce, the 
5 

1 agency reasonably declined to credit statements from Chen’s 

2 husband and his aunt on account of their inconsistent 

3 testimony, and did not err in declining to credit 

4 statements from Chen’s parents and friend in China. See

5 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Y.C. v. Holder, 741 

6 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to agency’s 

7 decision to afford little weight to relative’s letter from 

8 China because it was unsworn and from an interested 

9 witness); Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 

10 2007) (“An IJ may, either expressly or impliedly, rely on 

11 falsus in uno to discredit evidence that does not benefit 

12 from corroboration or authentication independent of the 

13 petitioner’s own credibility.”). Further, Chen admitted 

14 that the photographs of her Falun Gong practice were taken 

15 solely for the purpose of her application rather than 

16 spontaneously during her activities as a Falun Gong 

17 practitioner. 

18 Given Chen’s evasive demeanor, inconsistent evidence, 

19 and lack of reliable corroboration, the agency’s adverse 

20 credibility determination is supported by substantial 

21 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That 

22 determination is dispositive of withholding of removal and 
6 

1 CAT relief because both claims are based on the same 

2 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 

3 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

6 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

7 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

8 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

9 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

10 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

11 34.1(b). 

12 FOR THE COURT: 

13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 

14 Clerk of Court 

15