Case Name: WEI WU ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-11
Citations: 365 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 09-2813-ag
Parties: WEI WU ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 365
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
WEI WU ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-2813-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 11, 2010.
Sheema Chaudhry, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, David H. Wetmore, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Wei Wu Zhang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a June 12, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the November 29, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Thomas J. Mulligan, denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Zhang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 12, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 29, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA's and IJ's opinions. See Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. As the IJ found, Zhang's asylum application stated that he entered the United States on May 19, 2006. However, before ultimately testifying that he arrived on that date, Zhang provided conflicting dates, including September 2006, July 2006, and May 9. The agency properly relied on this inconsistency in finding Zhang not credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). To the extent that Zhang argues that the IJ failed to provide him an opportunity to explain that discrepancy, there is no merit to that claim, as (1) the inconsistent statement was made in response to a question posed by his own attorney; and (2) the IJ's adverse credibility determination did not rest on that inconsistency alone. See Ming Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111, 125 (2d Cir.2006).
The IJ also reasonably found that Zhang's demeanor detracted from his credibility. In particular, the IJ found that despite his detañed asylum application, Zhang was vague in his testimony regarding the most basic aspects of his claim. Additionally, the IJ observed numerous long delays in his responses. We accord particular deference to such assessments of an applicant's demeanor. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005).
Accordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, the IJ's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). As the only evidence of a threat to Zhang's life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).
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).