Ming Liang Zheng v. Holder

10-4293-ag
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A088 726 282
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 for
2 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 22nd day of February, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MING LIANG ZHENG
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-4293-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, NY
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Robert Michael
28 Stalzer, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, U.S.
30 Department of Justice, Washington
31 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 Ming Liang Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of the September 28, 2010,
7 order of the BIA, affirming the February 4, 2009, decision
8 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert Weisel, denying his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming-
11 Liang Zheng, No. A088 726 282 (B.I.A. Sept. 28, 2010), aff’g
12 No. A088 726 282 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 4, 2009). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514
17 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167
20 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 The agency’s adverse credibility determination is based
22 on substantial evidence given inconsistencies in Zheng’s
23 testimony and inconsistencies between his testimony, written
2
1 application, and record evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Although Zheng testified that police
3 began searching for him in China in December 2006 because of
4 his practice of Falun Gong, he also testified that police
5 only began searching for him after it was revealed that he
6 was a Falun Gong practitioner in January 2007, and a letter
7 from his mother stated that police began searching for him
8 only after he ran away following the public disclosure of
9 his practice of Falun Gong. Because Zheng’s only
10 explanation for these discrepancies – that he was sought in
11 December 2006 for his opposition to pollution at a local
12 factory and sought in January 2007 for his practice of Falun
13 Gong – did not address why he testified that he was sought
14 by the police in December 2006 for his practice of Falun
15 Gong, the agency was not compelled to accept this
16 explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
17 Cir. 2005). In addition, contrary to Zheng’s argument,
18 because none of the evidence Zheng provided rehabilitates
19 his inconsistent testimony regarding whether police searched
20 for him in December 2006 because of his Falun Gong practice,
21 the record does not compellingly suggest that the agency
22 ignored any record evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t
23 of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir. 2006). Based
3
1 on the agency’s reasonable adverse credibility
2 determination, it did not err in denying Zheng asylum,
3 withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as these claims
4 shared the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
5 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding of removal);
6 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523
7 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
4