Court Opinion

ID: 9401235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 15:01:03.085978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:51.533017
License: Public Domain

21-6088
     Zhang v. Garland
                                                                              BIA
                                                                        Navarro, IJ
                                                                      A206 999 170
                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                   SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 12th day of June, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
 9            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10            MYRNA PÉREZ,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   CHAO ZHANG,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                      v.                                  21-6088
18                                                          NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                    Jiyuan Zhang, Esq., J. Zhang and
25                                      Associates, P.C., Flushing, NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                    Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
28                                      Attorney General; Mary Jane
 1                                    Candaux, Assistant Director;
 2                                    Stephen Finn, Trial Attorney,
 3                                    Office of Immigration Litigation,
 4                                    United States Department of
 5                                    Justice, Washington, DC.

 6        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 7   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

 8   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

 9   is DENIED.

10        Petitioner     Chao Zhang,     a   native   and   citizen   of the

11   People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 27,

12   2021, decision of the BIA affirming a May 22, 2018, decision

13   of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for

14   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

15   Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).          In re Chao Zhang, No.

16   A206 999 170 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2021), aff’g No. A206 999 170

17   (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 22, 2018).         We assume the parties’

18   familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19        We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions

20   “for the     sake of   completeness.”       Wangchuck v.       Dep’t   of

21   Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).              We review

22   adverse    credibility     determination    “under     the   substantial

23   evidence standard.”        Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67,

24   76   (2d   Cir.   2018);   see   8 U.S.C.   § 1252(b)(4)(B)      (“[T]he
                                         2
 1   administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

 2   reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

 3   contrary.”).   We reverse an IJ’s credibility determination

 4   only if “it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could

 5   make such an adverse credibility ruling.”         Xiu Xia Lin v.

 6   Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).          And, a fact-

 7   finder “may base a credibility determination on . . . the

 8   inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account, the

 9   consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral

10   statements . . . , the   internal   consistency    of   each   such

11   statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with

12   other evidence of record.”     8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

13       In this case, substantial evidence supports the adverse

14   credibility determination given that Zhang omitted his only

15   alleged physical harm (arrests and beatings for protecting

16   Falun Gong practitioners), his ex-wife’s forced abortion, and

17   his practice of Buddhism in China from his application,

18   written   statement,     and    direct   testimony,     and    his

19   corroborating evidence did not rehabilitate his testimony.

20       The agency may rely on both omissions and inconsistencies

21   in making an adverse credibility determination, see Xiu Xia

                                     3
 1   Lin, 534 F.3d at 167, but it must “evaluate each inconsistency

 2   or omission in light of ‘the totality of the circumstances,

 3   and all relevant factors,’” Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 79

 4   (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).             Zhang’s omissions

 5   are probative of untruthfulness given that he discussed less

 6   relevant   facts    in   his   written     statement    and    on     direct

 7   examination.       For example, he included his aunts’ forced

 8   abortions and that family planning officials “humiliated” him

 9   and his former wife, but he did not include his ex-wife’s

10   forced abortion.         He also mentioned that he feared that

11   authorities    would      discover       his   aid     to     Falun    Gong

12   practitioners, but he did not disclose that he was arrested

13   and beaten for hiding them.          As we previously observed, “a

14   fact later asserted by a petitioner but omitted from his

15   earlier statement can be of such importance to the purpose of

16   the earlier statement that its omission makes the two tellings

17   inconsistent and legitimately casts doubt on the veracity of

18   the later addition.”      Singh v. Garland, 6 F.4th 418, 428 (2d

19   Cir. 2021).    Here, Zhang’s allegation on cross-examination

20   that he was arrested, detained, and beaten three or four times

21   by the Chinese government was essential to his asylum claim,

                                          4
 1   as it was his only allegation of past persecution.          The agency

 2   was not required to accept Zhang’s explanation that he omitted

 3   these facts because he forgot about his ex-wife’s abortion

 4   and did not think the other facts were worth including.             See

 5   Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A

 6   petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation

 7   for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must

 8   demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

 9   to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks omitted)).

10       Zhang’s documentary evidence did not rehabilitate his

11   claim.         “An   applicant’s           failure    to   corroborate

12   his . . . testimony may bear          on    credibility, because the

13   absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable

14   to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into

15   question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.

16   2007).   The    letters   Zhang   submitted      do   not resolve   the

17   discrepancies, and Zhang did not have any medical records to

18   corroborate either his claim of receiving a medical check-up

19   following his purported first police beating or that his ex-

20   wife was forced to have an abortion, as he claimed.

21       In sum, Zhang’s omission of critical facts as well as

                                       5
 1   the lack of corroboration of these facts provide substantial

 2   evidence for the adverse credibility determination.      This

 3   adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,

 4   withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms

 5   of relief are based on the same discredited factual predicate.

 6   See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

 7       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

 8   DENIED.   All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

 9   stays VACATED.

10                               FOR THE COURT:
11                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
12                               Clerk of Court
13

                                   6