Opinion ID: 2732873
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Decision of IJ

Text: The IJ denied Zeng’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, and ordered her to be removed to China. In his oral decision, the IJ catalogued the various documents submitted by both parties. The IJ concluded the birth of Zeng’s second child in 2005 qualified as a changed circumstance that could excuse her from the one-year asylum filing deadline. But Zeng failed to show she filed her application within a reasonable period of time, as she waited more than two years after the child’s birth to do so. Zeng also had not established any other changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing the late filing. Consequently, the IJ denied Zeng’s request for asylum as time-barred. 10 Case: 13-14431 Date Filed: 09/15/2014 Page: 11 of 16 The IJ alternatively concluded Zeng’s application, even if timely, would be denied based on her lack of credibility. The IJ determined Zeng’s testimony diverged significantly from the answers given in her asylum application and interview, and her corroborating evidence was unconvincing. First, Zeng’s alleged difficulty in communicating in Mandarin called into question her credibility, in light of her prior, repeated, representations as to her fluency in Mandarin. The IJ found Zeng’s “feigned difficulty” with Mandarin was an attempt to excuse her failure to have timely raised her religious-persecution claims. A.R. at 130–31. Second, the IJ found Zeng’s divergent answers as to her date of entry— which were inconsistent with her corroborating evidence—similarly called into question her credibility. Third, Zeng testified inconsistently as to whether the nuns and priest had escaped during the November 1998 church raid. Fourth, as discussed above, Zeng failed to raise timely her religious-persecution claim, which she did not mention during her asylum interview, despite being asked several openended questions about her reasons for seeking asylum. The inconsistent reasons given by Zeng for coming to the United States—religious persecution, family planning, or both—likewise called into question her credibility. Fifth, the IJ found Zeng’s testimony as to her residence was incredible. In particular, it was implausible that Zeng: (1) moved to Florida without her family to work as a waitress; (2) traveled from Florida to New York by bus for church 11 Case: 13-14431 Date Filed: 09/15/2014 Page: 12 of 16 monthly; and (3) did not know the number of floors and rooms in her home. Zeng’s testimony that she had recently moved to Orlando was inconsistent with her prior testimony in the same hearing that she lived in Ruskin. It also was inconsistent with her testimony that she flew from New York to Florida before each hearing. The conflicting testimony called into question whether she ever had lived in Florida. Finally, the IJ found Zeng’s demeanor supported an adverse-credibility determination. The IJ noted that Zeng laid her head on the witness table when it became clear she did not know details about her home. The IJ specifically found this action as “indicating that her false testimony had been discovered and that she could not clear up the numerous inconsistencies in her record.” A.R. at 137. The IJ alternatively determined Zeng had failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, and, in any event, she was not entitled to relief as a matter of discretion. Because Zeng had not shown she was eligible for asylum, she also had not established eligibility for withholding of removal. Finally, as to CAT relief, Zeng had not shown she would be subject to torture by, or with the acquiescence of, the Chinese government or a public official, if she returned to China. 12 Case: 13-14431 Date Filed: 09/15/2014 Page: 13 of 16