Case Name: NA JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-21
Citations: 492 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 11-4910
Parties: NA JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 492
Pages: 201–203

Head Matter:
NA JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-4910.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 21, 2012.
Troy Nader Moslemi, Moslemi & Associates, Inc., New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel; Tiffany L. Walters, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Na Jiang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of an October 28, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the March 10, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Javier E. Balasquide denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Na Jiang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 10, 2010). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered both the IJ's and the BIA's opinions. See Jigme Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008).
For asylum applications, like Jiang's, that are governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant's demeanor, the plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her or her witness's statements, without regard to whether they go "to the heart of the applicant's claim." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Further, under the REAL ID Act, this Court "defer[s] to an IJ's credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling." Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
In this case, as the agency reasonably found, Jiang's testimony was internally inconsistent in that she provided two different dates for her arrest in China. As the agency noted, Jiang's testimony also was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the testimony of her witness, Pastor Qi, regarding when the pastor had last seen Jiang at church. Further, the agency reasonably found that Jiang's testimony was inconsistent with Pastor Qi's testimony regarding whether Pastor Qi had required her to sign a letter before agreeing to testify at Jiang's hearing. The agency reasonably declined to accept Jiang's explanations for the inconsistencies because "[a] petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony." Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Given the inconsistencies identified by the agency, substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Accordingly, the agency did not err in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as all of the claims were based on the same factual predicate for which Jiang was found not credible. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).