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. 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 **8 th**  **day of July, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 7 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **DE EN CHEN,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 15-334** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER:** Zhou Min Wang, New York, New York. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. 27 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 28 Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial Attorney, 292 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, D.C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 7

DENIED. 8 Petitioner De En Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s 9 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 26, 2015 decision 10 of the BIA affirming a July 8, 2013 decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding 12 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re De En Chen, No. A201 295 292 (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 14 2015), aff’g No. A201 295 292 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 8, 15 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 16 facts and procedural history in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 18 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 20 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 21 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 22 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, 23 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, . . . base 243 a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or 1 responsiveness of the applicant,” and on inconsistencies in the 2 record evidence “without regard to whether” those 3 inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 4 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64 5 & n.2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 6 credibility determination. 7 The IJ reasonably relied on Chen’s demeanor, noting that 8 he was evasive and hesitant while testifying. See 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 10 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the record. 11 The IJ’s demeanor finding and the overall credibility 12 determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies 13 regarding when Chen’s church was raided in China, whether the 14 Chinese church that issued his baptism certificate is a 15 government-sanctioned church, and how often he attends church 16 in the United States. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 17 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d 18 at 165-67. In addition, Chen omitted any mention of the 19 incidents that form the bases for his claims during his credible 20 fear interview although he discussed incidents of harm suffered 21 by his family members and asserted a personal fear of harm. See 224 Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (“An inconsistency and an 1 omission are . . . functionally equivalent.”); cf. Ming Zhang 2

v. Holder , 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). Chen did not 3 provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. 4 See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. 5 Having questioned Chen’s credibility, the agency 6 reasonably relied further on his failure to submit 7 corroborating evidence sufficient to rehabilitate his 8 testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d 9 Cir. 2007). 10 Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and lack of 11 corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility 12 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. 13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That finding is dispositive of Chen’s 14 claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 15

Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17

DENIED. 18

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