19

- 4123 Chen v. Garland BIA Nelson , IJ A 208 192 420 

### 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 1**  **1 t**  **h da**  **y of J**  **a n**  **u a**  **r y**  **, two thousand twenty** 
**- two** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **GUIDO CALABRESI ,**  7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES ,**  8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **QI LIANG CHEN**  **,** 13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 19** 

**- 4123**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Dehai Zhang , Esq., Flushing, NY

. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Ethan P. Davis , Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General ; John S. Hogan , 26 Assistant Director ; Todd J. 27 Cochran , Trial Attorney, Office of 282 Immigration Litigation , United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, D C. 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 petitio n for review 6

is DENIED

. 7

Petitioner Qi Liang Chen , a native and citizen of the 8
People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a November 14 , 9

2019 , decision of the BIA affirming a March 5 , 201 8 , decision 10
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 11
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 12

(“CAT”)

. In re Qi Liang Chen , No. A 208 192 420 (B. I.A. Nov. 13

14 , 201 9 ), aff’g No. A 208 192 420 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 14

5 , 201 8 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15
underlying facts and procedural history. 16

We have review ed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 17
“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 18

Homeland Sec. , 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) (reviewing adverse credibility 22
determinations for substantial evidence); Paloka v. Holder , 23
762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings 243 for substantial evid ence and questions of law de novo)

. In 1
determining whether an asylum applicant has met his burden, 2
the agency “weigh[s] the credible testimony along with other 3

evidence of record .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). The 4
agency did not err in concluding that Chen failed to meet his 5
burden of proof. 6
The agency reasonably concluded that Chen was not 7

credible. “Considering the totality of the circumstances, 8
and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 9
credibility determination on

. . . the consistency between 10
the applicant’s

. . . written and oral statements

. . . and 11
any inaccuracies or falsehoods in su ch statements [

. ] ” 12

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 13
credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 14
circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder 15
could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin 16
v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei 17

Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. A n IJ may, “ either expressly or 18
impliedly,” discredit an applicant’s testimony and evidence 19

under the “maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus [false in 20
one thing, false in everything]. ” Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 21
F.3d 160, 170

– 71 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks 224 omitted , brackets in original )

. The IJ appropriately did so 1

here because Chen admitted that the detailed testimony of 2
past persecution that he gave under oath at his credible fear 3

interview was not true. The IJ was not required to credit 4

Chen’s recantation of these statement s or his explanation 5

that a snakehead told him to lie and he later recanted because 6

he was no longer allowed to lie afte r being baptized

. See 7
Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 8
petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 9

for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 10

demonstrate that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled 11
to credit his testimony.” (internal quotations omitted)). 12

Chen did not otherwise meet his burden of proof. He did 13

not allege past persecution before the IJ , so he had the 14

burden to establish a well

- founded fear of future persecution 15
by showing he would be “singled out individually for 16
persecution” based on his practice of Christianity or that 17
there was a “pattern or practice” of persecution of Christians 18

in China. 8 C.F.R. § 1 208.13(b)(2); Jian Liang v. Garland , 19
10 F.4th 106, 117 (2d Cir. 2021). The ag ency did not err in 20
concluding that Chen did not establish a well

- founded fear of 21
persecution under either theory. 225 Chen did not establish that he would be singled out for 1
persecution because he did not document the alleged events in 2

China or show that Chinese authorities were aware of his 3
practice of Christianity in the United States. See Hongsheng 4

Leng v. Mukasey , 528 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 2008) (“in order 5
to establish eligibility for relief based exclusively on 6

activities undertaken after .

. . arrival in the United 7
States, an alien must make some showing that authorities in 8
his country of nationality are (1) aware of his activities or 9
(2) likely to become aware of his activities”); see also Jian 10
Liang , 10 F.4th at 117. 11
Even assuming Chen would continue to practice 12
Christianity at an unregistered church in China , the agency 13
reasonably concluded that h e did not establish a well

- founded 14

fear of persecution based on a pattern or practice of 15
persecution of Christians because the record reflected varie d 16
treatment of Christians throughout China and because his 17
grandmother continued to practice Christianity u nharmed

. See 18

Jian Liang , 10 F.4th at 117 (holding that petitioner failed 19

to meet burden where State Department reports e stablish ed 20

that “treatment of Christians in China varies by locality” 21

and p etitioner’s evidence did not show persecution occurring 226 in his home province ) ; Melgar de Torres v. Reno , 191 F.3d 1
307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding asylum applicant’s fear of 2
persecution not well

- founded in part because her mother and 3
daughters continued to live unharmed in applicant’s native 4
country)

. 5

Given Chen’s admission that he lied under oath to 6
fabricate a past persecution claim and the lack of evidence 7

to support a pattern

- or - pract ice claim, the agency did not 8
err in concluding that he failed to meet his burden of proof

. 9

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). That determination is 10
dispositive of Chen’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 11
protection claims because all three forms of relief were based 12
on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 13
F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 14

F or the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 15

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 16

st ays VACATED. 17

FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 19 Clerk of Court 20