Zhang v. Lynch

13-4685
Zhang v. Lynch
BIA
Segal, IJ
A087 871 767/768/769
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.
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 15th day of August, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN,
REENA RAGGI,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
LINA ZHANG, NING DU, TINGYUE DU,
Petitioners,
v. 13-4685
NAC
LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,*
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONERS: Dehai Zhang, Esq., Flushing,
New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Division;
*
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General
Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. as Respondent.
Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant
Director; John B. Holt, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 Lina Zhang, Ning Du, and Tingyue Du, natives
and citizens of China, seek review of a November 25, 2013
order of the BIA affirming the November 2, 2011 decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of
removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. In re
Lina Zhang, Ning Du, Tingyue Du, Nos. A087 871 767/768/769
(B.I.A. Nov. 25, 2013), aff’g Nos. A087 871 767/768/769
(Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 2, 2011). Zhang is the lead
petitioner, and the others are derivative beneficiaries of her
asylum claim. 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 and the IJ’s decisions, including the portions of
the IJ’s decision not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See
Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005).
The applicable standards of review are well established. See
2
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act,
such as Zhang’s, the IJ may, considering the totality of the
circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
applicant’s demeanor, candor, or responsiveness, and
inconsistencies in her statements and other record evidence,
without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the
applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d at 163-65.
Here, the totality of the circumstances, including
Zhang’s inconsistent and implausible testimony, supports the
IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Zhang claims that she
was persecuted in China because she violated that country’s
family planning policy, and she claims that she fears future
persecution on account of her Christian faith. The IJ
reasonably found Zhang’s testimony inconsistent with her
asylum application. Zhang testified that after being
subjected to a forced abortion, she stayed home for about one
month. Her asylum application affidavit, however, states that
she was hospitalized for one month after her abortion. When
confronted with this discrepancy, Zhang admitted that she lied
3
in her original affidavit, explaining that her prior
attorney’s secretary instructed her to embellish her claim.
When asked why she did not correct this error before the
merits hearing, Zhang stated that she “forgot.” Certified
Administrative Record (“C.A.R.”) 85. The IJ reasonably found
these explanations unpersuasive. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
Zhang’s testimony was also inconsistent with that of her
husband’s. Zhang’s husband testified that she was
hospitalized for a month after her abortion. When confronted
with Zhang’s statement that she lied about how long she was
hospitalized, her husband asserted that Zhang must have
“remembered it wrong.” C.A.R. 115. Additionally, Zhang
testified that after she returned to work, she was fired about
one month later. Her husband, however, testified that Zhang
had a confrontation with her boss on the first day she
returned to work, and only worked for a few more days.
Finally, Zhang testified that, although she attended
church in Virginia when she visited her daughter, she did not
attend a church when she was home in New York City because she
could not find a service conducted in Chinese. The IJ
reasonably found it implausible that Zhang would not be able
4
to find such a church in New York City, particularly given her
testimony that she made little attempt to search for one. See
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d at 168.
Given Zhang’s inconsistent and implausible testimony,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination, which provided an adequate basis for denying
her asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-57
(2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5