Case Name: GAO WEI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-01
Citations: 613 F. App'x 87
Docket Number: No. 13-4691
Parties: GAO WEI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 87–88

Head Matter:
GAO WEI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-4691.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 1, 2015.
Lewis G. Hu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel; Shahrzad Baghai, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., as the Respondent in this case.

Opinion:
Gao Wei, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a November 14, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming the May 1, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge ("U"), denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Gao Wei, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 14, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 1, 2012). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We have reviewed the decisions of the IJ and the BIA "for the sake of completeness." Wangchuck v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 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); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).
We find no error in the agency's determination that Wei was not credible. For asylum applications like Wei's, governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, 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 statements and other record evidence, "without regard to whether" they go "to the heart of the applicant's claim." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). "We defer . 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 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008).
The record supports the agency's finding that Wei was at times hesitant and unresponsive while testifying about her participation in Chinese Democratic Party ("CDP") activities as well as other matters. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). The demeanor finding and the agency's adverse credibility determination as a whole were bolstered by inconsistencies in the record regarding when Wei participated in protests at a Chinese consulate and who filed her application for asylum. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006) ('We can be still more confident in our review of observations about an applicant's demeanor where, as here, they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent testimony."). The agency was not compelled to credit her explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
Given the agency's demeanor and inconsistency findings, substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Wei was not credible as to her participation in CDP activities. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. That determination was disposi-tive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 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).