Yilei Wang v. Holder ( 2012 )

11-716-ag
Wang v. Holder
BIA
Laforest, IJ
A088 727 563
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 3rd day of May, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 YILEI WANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-716-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Mouren Wu, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Ann M.
28 Welhaf, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 of Justice, 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 Yilei Wang, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of a January 26, 2011 order of the BIA
7 affirming the June 29, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest denying Wang’s application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Yilei Wang,
11 No. A088 727 563 (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 2011), aff’g No. A088 727
12 563 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 29, 2009). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by
16 the BIA’s decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268,
17 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are
18 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
19 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
20 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
21 credibility determination. See Yanquin Weng, 562 F.3d at22 513. Under the REAL ID Act, which applies to Wang’s
2
1 application for relief, “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency
2 or omission in making an adverse credibility determination
3 as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes
4 that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin v.
5 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
6 Here, multiple discrepancies between Wang’s testimony
7 and his supporting documentary evidence support the IJ’s
8 finding that Wang was not credible. Wang testified that he
9 fell, after running from Chinese family planning officials,
10 and sustained injuries to his right hand, left leg, and left
11 toe. However, the hospital certificate he submitted did not
12 mention these injuries, but instead stated that Wang
13 suffered entirely different injuries. Moreover, Wang
14 testified that he did not require surgery for his injuries,
15 yet he submitted a hospital receipt showing an “operation
16 fee”. As a result of his injuries, Wang testified, he spent
17 two months in the hospital. However, a letter from his wife
18 stated that he only spent ten days in the hospital.
19 The IJ may have erred in finding that a 2009
20 certificate showing a 1999 intrauterine device (“IUD”)
21 insertion (but not a 2005 insertion) contradicted Wang’s
22 testimony about his wife’s 2005 IUD insertion, as there was
3
1 no basis in the record to support the IJ’s apparent
2 assumption that the certificate would refer to both
3 procedures. However, any error in the IJ’s reliance on this
4 presumed discrepancy was harmless because the other
5 discrepancies the IJ identified constitute “ample, error-
6 free grounds that provide substantial evidence to support
7 the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.” Singh v. BIA,
8 438 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 2006); see also 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
10 Wang’s explanations for the inconsistencies—that his
11 wife’s letter was inaccurate because of her lack of
12 education and that he, as a layman, could not know what his
13 “operation fee” was for—do not compel a different
14 conclusion. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d
15 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a
16 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to
17 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable
18 fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.”
19 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because Wang’s claims
20 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief were all
21 based on the same factual predicate, the agency’s adverse
22 credibility determination forecloses all relief. See Paul v.
23 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
4
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
5