Jinqin Zheng v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services , 459 F. App'x 13 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          09-4612-ag
    Zheng v. BCIS
    BIA
    Balasquide, IJ
    A093 412 730
    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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    3       United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
    4       New York, on the 24th day of January, two thousand twelve.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                JON O. NEWMAN,
    8                JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
    9                RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
    10                     Circuit Judges.
    11       _____________________________________
    12
    13       JINQIN ZHENG
    14                Petitioner,
    15
    16                       v.                                     09-4612-ag
    17                                                              NAC
    18       BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND
    19       IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
    20                Respondent.
    21       _______________________________________
    22
    23       FOR PETITIONER:               John Chang, New York, New York.
    24
    25       FOR RESPONDENT:               Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    26                                     General; Emily Anne Radford,
    27                                     Assistant Director; James A. Hunolt,
    28                                     Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
    29                                     Immigration Litigation, United
    30                                     States Department of Justice,
    31                                     Washington, D.C.
    1       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    2   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
    3   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
    4   is DENIED.
    5       Petitioner Jinqin Zheng, a native and citizen of the
    6   People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 27,
    7   2009, order of the BIA, affirming the May 24, 2007, decision
    8   of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide, which denied
    9   her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
    10   relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).      In re
    11   Jinqin Zheng, No. A093 412 730 (B.I.A. Oct. 27, 2009), aff’g
    12   No. A093 412 730 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 24, 2007).     We
    13   assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
    14   and procedural history in this case.
    15       Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
    16   both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “‘for the sake of
    17   completeness.’”   Zaman v. Mukasey, 
    514 F.3d 233
    , 237 (2d
    18   Cir. 2008)(internal citation omitted).   The applicable
    19   standards of review are well-established.   See 8 U.S.C. §
    20   1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 
    562 F.3d 510
    , 513 (2d
    21   Cir. 2009).   For applications governed by the REAL ID Act of
    22   2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the
    23   circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
    2
    1   applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and
    2   inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether
    3   they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”   8 U.S.C.
    4   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N.
    5   Dec. 260, 265 (B.I.A. 2007).   Analyzed under the REAL ID
    6   Act, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is
    7   supported by substantial evidence.
    8       In finding Zheng not credible, the agency reasonably
    9   relied on inconsistencies in her testimony.    See Xiu Xia Lin
    10   v. Mukasey, 
    534 F.3d 162
    , 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
    11   Most importantly, the agency noted that a medical document
    12   Zheng submitted contradicted her testimony that she was
    13   forced to undergo an abortion, as it stated that Zheng was
    14   “requesting” an abortion for an “unwanted pregnancy.”
    15   Although Zheng suggested that the “birth control bureau
    16   people” had written that the abortion was voluntary “to show
    17   that they did not force [her],” the agency was entitled to
    18   disregard this explanation, as it would not necessarily be
    19   compelling to a reasonable factfinder, especially given
    20   Zheng’s initial statement that she was unaware that the
    21   document contained that information.   See Majidi v.
    22   Gonzales, 
    430 F.3d 77
    , 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
    3
    1       The agency also reasonably found that Zheng’s
    2   documentary evidence contradicted her testimony with respect
    3   to her allegation that she was twice required to use an
    4   intra-uterine device (“IUD”) because a Family Planning
    5   Health Maintenance Certificate she submitted listed only the
    6   first alleged IUD insertion.   Again, the agency was not
    7   required to accept her attempt to explain that the
    8   certificate did not list her more recent IUD insertion
    9   because it was a “new book.” See 
    id. In addition,
    the
    10   agency reasonably found that inconsistencies in Zheng’s
    11   testimony as to whether she left her hiding place before
    12   December 2002 and whether she had seen a doctor in the
    13   United States further undermined her credibility.    See Iouri
    14   v. Ashcroft, 
    487 F.3d 76
    , 81-82 (2d Cir. 2007).
    15       Contrary to Zheng’s argument that the agency erred in
    16   relying on minor inconsistencies to find her not credible,
    17   under the REAL ID Act, the agency “may rely on any
    18   inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility
    19   determination as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’
    20   establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.”     Xiu
    21   Xia 
    Lin, 534 F.3d at 167
    (quoting 8 U.S.C.
    22   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).
    4
    1       We note that the record does not support the agency’s
    2   inconsistency findings with respect to: (1) whether Zheng
    3   was five months or one month pregnant at the time of her
    4   alleged abortion; and (2) the fact that the out-patient
    5   record was issued before her abortion.   In light of the
    6   totality of the record, however, these erroneous findings do
    7   not require remand as there is no realistic possibility that
    8   the agency would find Zheng not credible in their absence.
    9   See Diallo v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    548 F.3d 232
    , 235 (2d
    10   Cir. 2008); Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    428 F.3d 11
      391, 401 (2d Cir. 2005).   Moreover, because the agency’s
    12   non-erroneous inconsistency findings more than adequately
    13   supported its adverse credibility determination, we need not
    14   address the agency’s further finding that Zheng’s testimony
    15   was in part implausible.   See Xiu Xia 
    Lin, 534 F.3d at 167
    .
    16   Because the adverse credibility determination is supported
    17   by substantial evidence, the agency’s denial of Zheng’s
    18   application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
    19   relief was not in error as all three claims shared the same
    20   factual predicate.   See Paul v. Gonzales, 
    444 F.3d 148
    , 156
    21   (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding of removal); Xue Hong Yang v.
    22   U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    426 F.3d 520
    , 523 (2d Cir. 2006)
    23   (CAT).
    5
    1        For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    2    DENIED.   As we have completed our review, any stay of
    3    removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    4    is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    5    this petition is DISMISSED as moot.    Any pending request for
    6    oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    7    Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    8    Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    9                                 FOR THE COURT:
    10                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    6