10-4628-ag Yang v. Holder BIA Laforest, IJ A088 335 910 

### 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 FE DERAL 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New** 3 **York, on the 27 th** **day of April, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,** 7 **REENA RAGGI,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_________________________________________** 11 12 **XIU ZHEN YANG, AKA TARIMOTO MASHIKO,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 10-4628-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_________________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, Esq., New York,** 23 **N.Y.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;** 26 **Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director;** 27 **Remi Da Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney;** 28 **Office of Immigration Litigation,** 29 **United States Department of Justice,** 30 **Washington, D.C.** 312 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Xiu Zhen Yang, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 12, 6 2010 decision of the BIA affirming the December 15, 2008 7 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest denying 8 her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 9 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 10 re Xiu Zhen Yang, No. A088 335 910 (B.I.A. Oct. 12, 2010), 11 aff’g No. A088 335 910 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 15, 2008). We 12 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history of the case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 15 BIA’s and the IJ’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales , 16 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 17 review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 18 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 19 Because Yang filed her asylum application in 2008, the 20 REAL ID Act applies in this case.SeeREAL ID Act of 2005, 21 Div. B of Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005); Chuilu Liu 223 v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 197 n.1 (2d Cir. 2009). For asylum 1 applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, 2 considering the totality of the circumstances, base a 3 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the 4 plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her or her 5 witness’s statements, without regard to whether they go “to 6 the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 7 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); accord Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 8 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 9 that Yang did not testify credibly regarding her claim that 10 she had been persecuted in China. The agency reasonably 11 relied on inconsistencies in the record. See 8 U.S.C. 12 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163- 13 64, 166-68. Yang’s testimony and statement were inconsistent 14 with her mother’s letter regarding the cause and timing of her 15 father’s mental breakdown. The agency reasonably declined to 16 credit her explanation for that inconsistency—that her mother 17 was not highly educated—because the letter attributes the 18 cause of Yang’s father’s mental health problems to an 19 event—his wife’s forced sterilization—distinct from the 20 beating and detention that Yang claims to have caused her 21 father’s mental breakdown almost a decade later. Although 224 Yang argues that her mother’s letter can be construed to 1 comport with Yang’s testimony, Yang was required “to do more 2 than offer a ‘plausible’ alternative theory.” Wu Biao Chen v. 3
INS, 344 F.3d 272, 275 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Majidi v. 4 Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that 5 agency need not credit applicant’s explanations unless those 6 explanations would compel reasonable fact-finder to do so). 7 Yang also argues that the agency erred in relying on her 8 testimony regarding her parents’ fake divorce and her father’s 9 subsequent fake marriage to undermine the credibility of her 10 mother’s letter and of her own testimony. The IJ’s decision 11 to give limited weight to this letter is entitled to 12 deference, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 13 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006), and we conclude that the IJ 14 reasonably attributed the mother’s lack of credibility to Yang 15 as Yang submitted the letter to support her application. See 16 Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (relying 17 on the maxim of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus(false in one 18 thing, false in everything) to hold that once single document 19 is shown to be false, IJ is “free to deem suspect other 20 documents (and to disbelieve other testimony) that depend for 21 probative weight upon [applicant’s] veracity”). 225 Similarly, the agency did not err in giving limited 1 weight to the certificates of hospitalization for Yang’s 2 father. This conclusion, which is entitled to deference, see 3 Xiao Ji Chen , 471 F.3d at 342, was reasonable, given that the 4 certificates neither were contemporaneous with the alleged 5 hospitalizations nor reflected any actual diagnoses or 6

treatment. 7 Contrary to Yang’s arguments, having questioned Yang’s 8 credibility, the IJ reasonably relied further on her failure 9 to provide corroborating evidence to support her claims of 10 both past persecution and a fear of future persecution in 11 China. An applicant’s failure to corroborate testimony may 12 bear on credibility either because the absence of particular 13 corroborating evidence is viewed as suspicious, or because the 14 absence of corroboration in general prevents an applicant from 15 rehabilitating testimony that has already been called into 16 question. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d 17 Cir. 2007). Here, the agency reasonably concluded that, in 18 light of the inconsistencies in the record, Yang’s failure to 19 offer corroborating evidence further undermined her 20 credibility. 21

226 Ultimately, given these findings, the IJ’s adverse 1 credibility determination was supported by substantial 2 evidence. See8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 3 F.3d at 163-64. Accordingly, the agency did not err in 4 denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 5 and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d 6 Cir. 2006). 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 12 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 13 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 14 34(b). 15
FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 17