15-334 

Chen v. Lynch 

BIA 

Poczter, IJ 

A201 295 292 

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 for 

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

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

8th 4 day of July, two thousand sixteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 GUIDO CALABRESI,

8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 DE EN CHEN, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 15-334 

17 NAC 

18 

19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

21 Respondent. 

22 _____________________________________ 

23 

24 FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Min Wang, New York, New York. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

27 Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. 

28 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 

29 Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial Attorney, 
2 

1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

2 United States Department of Justice, 

3 Washington, D.C. 

4 

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

8 DENIED. 

9 Petitioner De En Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s 

10 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 26, 2015 decision 

11 of the BIA affirming a July 8, 2013 decision of an Immigration 

12 Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding 

13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

14 (“CAT”). In re De En Chen, No. A201 295 292 (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 

15 2015), aff’g No. A201 295 292 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 8, 

16 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

17 facts and procedural history in this case. 

18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 

19 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 

20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 

21 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 

22 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 

23 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, 

24 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, . . . base 
3 

1 a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or 

2 responsiveness of the applicant,” and on inconsistencies in the 

3 record evidence “without regard to whether” those 

4 inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 

5 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64 

6 & n.2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 

7 credibility determination. 

8 The IJ reasonably relied on Chen’s demeanor, noting that 

9 he was evasive and hesitant while testifying. See 8 U.S.C. 

10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 

11 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the record. 

12 The IJ’s demeanor finding and the overall credibility 

13 determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies 

14 regarding when Chen’s church was raided in China, whether the 

15 Chinese church that issued his baptism certificate is a 

16 government-sanctioned church, and how often he attends church 

17 in the United States. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 

18 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 

19 at 165-67. In addition, Chen omitted any mention of the 

20 incidents that form the bases for his claims during his credible 

21 fear interview although he discussed incidents of harm suffered 

22 by his family members and asserted a personal fear of harm. See 
4 

1 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (“An inconsistency and an 

2 omission are . . . functionally equivalent.”); cf. Ming Zhang 

3 v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). Chen did not 

4 provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. 

5 See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

6 Having questioned Chen’s credibility, the agency 

7 reasonably relied further on his failure to submit 

8 corroborating evidence sufficient to rehabilitate his 

9 testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d 

10 Cir. 2007). 

11 Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and lack of 

12 corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility 

13 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. 

14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That finding is dispositive of Chen’s 

15 claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See

16 Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

18 DENIED. 

19 FOR THE COURT: 

20 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk