Ren v. Barr

17-4128
Ren v. Barr
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A202 018 631
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 13th day of December, two thousand nineteen.
PRESENT:
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
JIANLEI REN,
Petitioner,
v. 17-4128
NAC
WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Wei Gu, Albertson, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Linda S.
Wernery, Assistant Director;
Steven K. Uejio, 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.
Petitioner Jianlei Ren, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 30,
2017, decision of the BIA affirming a March 22, 2017, decision
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ren’s application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianlei Ren, No.
A 202 018 631 (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2017), aff’g No. A 202 018 631
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 22, 2017). 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 BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 319, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the
agency’s adverse credibility determination for substantial
evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.
Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the
totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a
2
trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . .
the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s
account, the consistency between the applicant’s . . .
written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency
of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such
statements with other evidence of record . . . .” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an
adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d
at 76. The multiple inconsistencies in Ren’s statements
among Ren’s application, asylum interview, and hearing
testimony provide substantial evidence for the adverse
credibility determination.
As an initial matter, the agency reasonably relied on
the record of Ren’s asylum interview. The interview record
here bears sufficient indicia of reliability. See Diallo v.
Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 631-33 (2d Cir. 2006). It is a type-
written “account of the specific questions asked of [Ren] and
his specific responses to those questions,” is not informally
3
annotated, and offers a “meaningful, clear, and reliable
summary of the statements [Ren] made” at the interview. Id.
at 632 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The interview record does not support Ren’s allegation
of coercive circumstances. Ren brought his own interpreter,
and his answers were responsive to the questions asked and
without any indication that the interpreter added commentary.
The agency was not required to have the asylum officer testify
before relying on the interview record. See Zhen Nan Lin v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 459 F.3d 255, 268 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The
government is not required to comply with . . . the Federal
Rules of Evidence . . . when seeking to have documentary
evidence . . . admitted in a removal proceeding.”); Felzcerek
v. INS, 75 F.3d 112, 116-17 (2d Cir. 1996)(noting rule that
government record prepared in the ordinary course of business
is presumptively reliable and admissible).
Given the reliability of Ren’s asylum interview record,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
he was not credible. He alleged that he was arrested, beaten
and detained for helping his wife escape from a forced
abortion. Ren’s testimony, application statement, and asylum
4
interview were inconsistent as to whether (1) Ren was present
for the alleged encounter with Chinese officials and birth of
his second child in 2013 or at sea working on a container
ship, (2) his second child was born in secret or in a
government hospital, (3) his second child was born in Beijing
or Gaocheng, (4) he registered his second child’s birth in
July or November 2013, and (5) his marital status in his
household registry was accurate. Ren did not compellingly
explain these contradictions and discrepancies. See Majidi
v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner
must do more than offer a plausible explanation for . . .
inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate
that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit
his testimony.” (internal quotations omitted)). Ren contends
that some of these inconsistencies arose from an erroneous
translation of his asylum application, but he did not present
a corrected translation to the agency and does not do so now.
Id.
Given these inconsistencies, the agency reasonably
relied on Ren’s failure to rehabilitate his questionable
testimony with reliable corroboration. See Biao Yang v.
5
Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s
failure to corroborate . . . testimony may bear on
credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general
makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has
already been called into question.”). Ren has waived any
challenge to the weight the agency gave his evidence by not
challenging the findings in his brief. See Yueqing Zhang v.
Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
Even if raised, “[w]e generally defer to the agency’s
evaluation of the weight to be afforded an applicant’s
documentary evidence.” Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d
Cir. 2013). We find no error in the agency’s decision not
to give weight to letters from interested witnesses in China
who were unavailable for cross examination and government
notices that relied on Ren’s credibility for their validity.
See id. (deferring to the agency’s decision to afford little
weight to petitioner’s husband’s letter because it was
unsworn and from an interested witness); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006)
(deferring to weight IJ gave evidence after finding
petitioner was not credible).
6
Given the multiple inconsistencies and Ren’s lack of
independently reliable corroboration, the agency’s adverse
credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That
determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were 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 of Court
7