Opinion ID: 151885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Zheng’s Falun Gong Claim

Text: Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zheng did not credibly establish that he suffered past persecution due to his Falun Gong practice. See Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003). The IJ reasonably found Zheng not credible based on: (1) his inconsistent testimony regarding the date he was allegedly arrested; (2) his admittedly false claim that he was persecuted on account of his homosexuality; (3) his inconsistent testimony about what information he provided in his first asylum application; and (4) his lengthy delay in raising his Falun Gong claim. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 398 (2d Cir. 2005) (upholding adverse credibility determination based “on the commonsense observation that it is inconsistent for a petitioner to respond to the same question about the nature of his asylum claim with two entirely different responses”). Although petitioner offered explanations for these discrepancies, a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to credit them. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). 3 The agency also reasonably determined that Zheng failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution due to his practice of Falun Gong in the United States, as he failed to present any evidence indicating that authorities in China are aware or likely to become aware of his practice. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[T]o establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some showing that authorities in his country of nationality are either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities.”); Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that, absent solid record support for petitioner’s assertion that he would persecuted, his fear was “speculative at best”).