14-950 Chen v. Holder BIA Christensen, IJ A200 933 701 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **30 th**  **day of March, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **PETER W. HALL,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **JIAN LEI CHEN, AKA JIANLEI CHEN,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 14-950** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER:**  Jian Lei Chen, pro se, Fresh Meadows, 24 New York. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 27 General, Mary Jane Candaux, 28 Assistant Director, Nicole J. 29 Thomas-Dorris, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 312 United States Department of Justice, 1 Washington, D.C. 2 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 6

DENIED. 7 Petitioner Jian Lei Chen, a native and citizen of the 8 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 17, 2014, 9 decision of the BIA affirming a December 7, 2011, decision of 10 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for 11 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 12 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Lei Chen, No. A200 933 701 13 (B.I.A. Jan. 17, 2014), aff’g No. A200 933 701 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 14 City Dec. 7, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 15 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 16 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 17 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 18 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 19 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 20 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 21 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, 22 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a 233 credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s 1 statements and other record evidence “without regard to 2 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 3 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 4 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that 5 Chen was not credible. 6 The agency reasonably relied on several discrepancies in 7 the record. For example, Chen testified that his mother 8 arranged for his girlfriend to deliver their baby at a private 9 hospital on a date eleven months after they discovered she was 10 pregnant. The IJ was not compelled to credit Chen’s 11 explanation that he was young and unaware of the normal 12 gestation period because presumably both his mother and the 13 hospital with which she made arrangements would have had such 14 knowledge. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 15 2005). The agency also reasonably relied on record 16 inconsistencies related to whether Chen told doctors at a public 17 hospital that he had been beaten, and whether family planning 18 officials arrested Chen at his house or his father’s house. See 19 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-67. 20 Having questioned Chen’s credibility, the agency reasonably 21 relied further on his failure to prov ide credible evidence to 224 rehabilitate his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 1 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 2 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, which 3 called into question whether there was any pregnancy or 4 beating—the two main facts underlying the claim-the agency’s 5 adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial 6 evidence, and is dispositive of Chen’s claims for asylum, 7 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 9 (2d Cir. 2006). 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 13 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 14 is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 15 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 17 34.1(b). 18

FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 20