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.

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 

30th 4 day of March, two thousand fifteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 PETER W. HALL, 

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 JIAN LEI CHEN, AKA JIANLEI CHEN, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 14-950 

17 NAC 

18 

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

21 Respondent. 

22 _____________________________________ 

23 

24 FOR PETITIONER: Jian Lei Chen, pro se, Fresh Meadows, 

25 New York. 

26 

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 

28 General, Mary Jane Candaux, 

29 Assistant Director, Nicole J. 

30 Thomas-Dorris, Trial Attorney, 

31 Office of Immigration Litigation, 
2

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 Jian Lei Chen, a native and citizen of the 

9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 17, 2014, 

10 decision of the BIA affirming a December 7, 2011, decision of 

11 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for 

12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Lei Chen, No. A200 933 701 

14 (B.I.A. Jan. 17, 2014), aff’g No. A200 933 701 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 

15 City Dec. 7, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 

16 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

17 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 

18 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 a 
3

1 credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s 

2 statements and other record evidence “without regard to 

3 whether” they 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 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that 

6 Chen was not credible. 

7 The agency reasonably relied on several discrepancies in 

8 the record. For example, Chen testified that his mother 

9 arranged for his girlfriend to deliver their baby at a private 

10 hospital on a date eleven months after they discovered she was 

11 pregnant. The IJ was not compelled to credit Chen’s 

12 explanation that he was young and unaware of the normal 

13 gestation period because presumably both his mother and the 

14 hospital with which she made arrangements would have had such 

15 knowledge. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 

16 2005). The agency also reasonably relied on record 

17 inconsistencies related to whether Chen told doctors at a public 

18 hospital that he had been beaten, and whether family planning 

19 officials arrested Chen at his house or his father’s house. See 

20 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. 

21 Having questioned Chen’s credibility, the agency reasonably 

22 relied further on his failure to provide credible evidence to 
4

1 rehabilitate his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 

2 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 

3 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, which 

4 called into question whether there was any pregnancy or 

5 beating—the two main facts underlying the claim-the agency’s 

6 adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial 

7 evidence, and is dispositive of Chen’s claims for asylum, 

8 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. 

9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 

10 (2d Cir. 2006). 

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

15 is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 

16 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

18 34.1(b). 

19 FOR THE COURT: 

20 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk