Weng v. Sessions ( 2018 )

16-3011
Weng v. Sessions
BIA
Van Wyke, IJ
A087 783 685
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
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 13th day of July, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JIA MING WENG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-3011
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Mona Liza F. Lao, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal
28 H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation, United
1 States Department of Justice,
2 Washington, DC.
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
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Jia Ming Weng, a native and citizen of the
9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 3, 2016,
10 decision of the BIA affirming a February 27, 2015, decision
11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Weng’s application for
12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jia Ming Weng, No.
14 A 087 783 685 (B.I.A. Aug. 3, 2016), aff’g No. A 087 783 685
15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 27, 2015). We assume the parties’
16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
17 in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
19 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang
20 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
21 The standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C.
2
1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-
2 66 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
4 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on
5 the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the
6 “inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account,” any
7 inconsistencies in the applicant’s oral or written
8 statements, or “any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-
10 64. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination
11 unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could
12 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534
13 F.3d at 167.
14 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
15 that Weng was not credible. The agency reasonably relied on
16 internal inconsistencies in Weng’s testimony about where he
17 attended his first house church service after his arrest, and
18 whether he called the pastor to find out where the service
19 would be. It also properly considered that Weng’s testimony
20 was implausible when he stated that he did not know any of
21 the guards at the house church services, although he attended
3
1 services regularly for two years and knew that the guards
2 were church members who were assigned by the pastor. 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Ming Xia Chen v. B.I.A., 435 F.3d 141,
4 146 (2d Cir. 2006). The agency’s negative demeanor finding,
5 which Weng does not challenge, provides further support for
6 the adverse credibility ruling. Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
7 Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). And Weng’s
8 corroborating evidence did not rehabilitate his testimony,
9 especially because the baptism certificate he submitted was
10 a fill-in-the-blank form that seemed to be from a government-
11 sanctioned church rather than an illegal house church. Biao
12 Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
13 These discrepancies call into question whether Weng
14 attended a house church in China and provide substantial
15 evidence for the agency’s determination that Weng’s past
16 persecution claim was not credible. 8 U.S.C.
17 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67. To
18 the extent that Weng relies on the alleged past persecution
19 to argue that he is eligible for asylum, withholding of
20 removal, and CAT relief, this adverse credibility
21 determination is dispositive. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
4
1 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). And Weng does not challenge the
2 agency’s conclusion that he failed to establish a well-
3 founded fear of persecution or a likelihood of torture based
4 on his current practice of Christianity. Yueqing Zhang v.
5 Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
8 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
9 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
10 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
11 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
12 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
13 34.1(b).
14
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
17 Clerk of Court
5