Zhen Yu Piao v. Holder

11-3582-ag
Piao v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A093 448 085
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 6th day of September, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ZHEN YU PIAO, AKA ZHEN YU PU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-3582-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Jie Han, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acing Assistant
27 Attorney General; Jennifer Lightbody,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Channah M.
29 Farber, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
31 United States Department of Justice,
32 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 Zhen Yu Piao, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 5,
7 2011, order of the BIA affirming the February 25, 2010,
8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Piao’s
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhen Yu
11 Piao, No. A093 448 085 (B.I.A. Aug. 5, 2011), aff’g No. A093
12 448 085 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 25, 2010). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 When, as here, “the BIA agrees with an IJ’s adverse
16 credibility determination and adopts particular parts of the
17 IJ’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the BIA and
18 the IJ.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir.
19 2008) (per curiam). The applicable standards of review are
20 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
21 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because Piao
22 challenges only the denial of withholding of removal, we do
2
1 not address the agency’s denial of asylum and CAT relief.
2 The agency reasonably concluded that Piao’s testimony
3 was not credible based on inconsistencies between her
4 written statements and testimony regarding the reason for
5 her delay in filing her asylum application and the
6 circumstances of her abortion. While her asylum application
7 stated that she did not file for asylum in 2005 because she
8 was unaware that such relief existed, she testified that she
9 had hired an attorney in 2004 or 2005 to file an
10 application. Additionally, her written statement indicated
11 that she suffered an abortion immediately after a medical
12 test discovered that she was pregnant and against her will,
13 while she testified that the abortion occurred two days
14 later and she consented to it (when her job was threatened).
15 Moreover, the IJ reasonably noted that the written statement
16 omitted Piao’s allegation that she was given an IUD to wear
17 after the abortion, something which Piao testified to before
18 the IJ. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (providing
19 that, for purposes of analyzing a credibility determination,
20 “[a]n inconsistency and an omission are . . . functionally
21 equivalent”).
22
3
1 These inconsistencies provide substantial evidence in
2 support of the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
3 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C). Because
4 Piao was not credible, the agency did not err in denying her
5 application for withholding of removal. See Paul v.
6 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).1
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
13 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
14 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
1
We note that the brief submitted by Piao’s attorney, Jie
Han, is cursory at best and barely challenges the agency’s
decision. Instead, it simply asserts, without explanation,
that the record did not support the inconsistencies identified
by the IJ. The brief did not give the “reasons for [Piao’s
contentions], with citations to the authorities and parts of
the record on which [Piao] relies.” Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(9)(A). Future briefing of this quality may result in
discipline.
4