Case Name: SHIFENG 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: 2014-04-14
Citations: 562 F. App'x 38
Docket Number: No. 12-793
Parties: SHIFENG JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 562
Pages: 38–39

Head Matter:
SHIFENG JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-793.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 14, 2014.
Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Bernard A. Joseph, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Shifeng Jiang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a November 14, 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the December 22, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Jesse B. Christensen, denying Jiang's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Shifeng Jiang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 14, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 22, 2010). 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 IJ's and the BIA's opinions "for the sake of completeness." Zaman v. Mulcasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). 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 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 and other record evidence 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 determination that Jiang was not credible.
In finding him not credible, the IJ reasonably relied on Jiang's demeanor, noting that his manner and answers changed when confronted with record inconsistencies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). That finding is supported by the hearing transcript.
The IJ's adverse credibility determination is further supported by specific examples of contradictory statements. 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."). Indeed, the IJ reasonably found inconsistencies and omissions in record evidence related to the circumstances surrounding Jiang's employment as a guard for a village chief, the beating that he purportedly suffered, and the location of his practice of Falun Gong. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64,166 n. 3. Jiang failed to provide compelling explanations for the discrepancies in the record. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
Given the demeanor and inconsistency findings, the agency's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, and was dispositive of Jiang's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. The 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).