Case Name: KE YUN HUANG, 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: 2011-08-17
Citations: 430 F. App'x 47
Docket Number: No. 10-2464-ag
Parties: KE YUN HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 47–49

Head Matter:
KE YUN HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-2464-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 17, 2011.
Michael Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney, General; Greg Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel; Wendy Benner-León, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, GERARD E. LYNCH and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Ke Yun Huang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the June 9, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the September 18, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Barbara A. Nelson, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Ke Yun Huang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 9, 2010), ajfg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 18, 2008). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA's and IJ's opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). 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, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008). For asylum applications 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 his account, and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether they go "to the heart of the applicant's claim." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. In finding Huang not credible, the agency reasonably relied in part on his omission from his asylum application of his claim that he was handcuffed for 80 minutes while in detention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67 & n. 3. Although we have recognized that asylum applicants are not required to list every incident or provide every detail in their asylum applica tions because the application form provides only limited space for an applicant to describe his claim, see Pavlova v. INS, 441 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir.2006); see also Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 306 (2d Cir.2003), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, the IJ reasonably rejected Huang's explanation that he was unable to include many details in his application as he attached a two page detailed statement in support of his application and he provided other inconsistent explanations for the omission. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. We further find no error in the agency's determination that Huang's account of his escape from detention was implausible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir.2007).
Thus, the agency's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence and provided an adequate basis for denying Huang's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because those claims all were based on the same factual predicate. 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.