Jian Lei Chen v. Holder ( 2015 )

14-950
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A200 933 701
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 30th day of March, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JIAN LEI CHEN, AKA JIANLEI CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-950
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Jian Lei Chen, pro se, Fresh Meadows,
25 New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General, Mary Jane Candaux,
29 Assistant Director, Nicole J.
30 Thomas-Dorris, Trial Attorney,
31 Office of Immigration Litigation,
1 United States Department of Justice,
2 Washington, D.C.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
7 DENIED.
8 Petitioner Jian Lei Chen, a native and citizen of the
9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 17, 2014,
10 decision of the BIA affirming a December 7, 2011, decision of
11 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for
12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Lei Chen, No. A200 933 701
14 (B.I.A. Jan. 17, 2014), aff’g No. A200 933 701 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.
15 City Dec. 7, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
16 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
17 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the
18 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
20 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
21 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
22 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may,
23 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a
2
1 credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s
2 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
3 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
4 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
5 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
6 Chen was not credible.
7 The agency reasonably relied on several discrepancies in
8 the record. For example, Chen testified that his mother
9 arranged for his girlfriend to deliver their baby at a private
10 hospital on a date eleven months after they discovered she was
11 pregnant. The IJ was not compelled to credit Chen’s
12 explanation that he was young and unaware of the normal
13 gestation period because presumably both his mother and the
14 hospital with which she made arrangements would have had such
15 knowledge. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.
16 2005). The agency also reasonably relied on record
17 inconsistencies related to whether Chen told doctors at a public
18 hospital that he had been beaten, and whether family planning
19 officials arrested Chen at his house or his father’s house. See
20 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67.
21 Having questioned Chen’s credibility, the agency reasonably
22 relied further on his failure to provide credible evidence to
3
1 rehabilitate his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496
2 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
3 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, which
4 called into question whether there was any pregnancy or
5 beating—the two main facts underlying the claim-the agency’s
6 adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
7 evidence, and is dispositive of Chen’s claims for asylum,
8 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57
10 (2d Cir. 2006).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
15 is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
16 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
18 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4