Zhong Wu v. Sessions ( 2018 )

16-3938
Wu v. Sessions
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A206 052 496/497
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
New York, on the 23rd day of February, two thousand
eighteen.
PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,
PETER W. HALL,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
ZHONG WU, GUANGWEI LIU,
Petitioners,
v. 16-3938
NAC
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Jim Li, Flushing, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Brianne Whelan
Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel;
Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States
Department of Justice, Washington,
DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioners Zhong Wu and Guangwei Liu, natives and
citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of
a November 3, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a
February 4, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhong Wu,
Guangwei Liu, Nos. A206 052 496/497 (B.I.A. Nov. 3, 2016),
aff’g Nos. A206 052 496/497 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 4,
2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448
F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of
review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu
Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
2
determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of
the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the
applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between
the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral
statements . . . , [and] the internal consistency of each
such statement . . . without regard to whether an
inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart
of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Wu and Liu were
not credible as to their claim that Chinese officials
detained and harmed Wu on account of his practice of
Christianity nor as to their continuing practice of
Christianity in the United States.
The agency reasonably relied on record inconsistencies
regarding how often Liu attended religious gatherings with
Wu in China, when Wu was baptized, why Liu had not attended
Wu’s baptism, and how often Wu and Liu communicated during
the time when Liu was on a work trip and Wu was purportedly
detained, all of which called into question Wu’s practice
of Christianity and detention in China, as well as how long
they had worked in Syracuse, which called into question
3
their alleged attendance at church in New York City. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534
F.3d at 165-67. They did not provide compelling
explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v.
Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner
must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his
inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be
compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The agency also reasonably found it implausible that
Liu, who lived with Wu and was aware that he had been
beaten on his face, did not know that he also had been
beaten on his chest and abdomen. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509
F.3d 63, 66-68 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing that an adverse
credibility determination may be based on inherent
implausibility in the applicant’s story if the “finding is
tethered to record evidence” or based on common sense).
Given the inconsistent and implausible testimony, the
agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu
4
Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. That determination is
dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief because all three claims are based on the same
factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5