Qing Hui Zheng v. Lynch

15-2118
Zheng v. Lynch
BIA
Van Wyke, IJ
A087 468 196
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.
1
2 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
3 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
4 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
5 New York, on the 14th day of November, two thousand sixteen.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 QING HUI ZHENG, AKA QINGHUI
15 ZHENG,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 15-2118
19 NAC
20 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Law Office of
26 Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New
27 Jersey.
28
29 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
30 Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
31 Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant
1 Director; Jane T. Schaffner, Trial
2 Attorney, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, United States
4 Department of Justice, Washington,
5 D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Qing Hui Zheng, a native and citizen of
12 China, seeks review of a June 10, 2015, decision of the
13 BIA, affirming a November 6, 2013, decision of an
14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zheng’s application for
15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qing Hui Zheng,
17 No. A087 468 196 (B.I.A. June 10, 2015), aff’g No. A087 468
18 196 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 6, 2013). We assume the
19 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
20 procedural history in this case.
21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
22 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for the sake of
23 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448
24 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of
25 review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu
26 Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
1 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
2 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum
3 applicant’s demeanor and inconsistencies in his statements
4 and other record evidence “without regard to whether” those
5 inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
6 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
7 166-67. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
8 determination that Zheng was not credible.
9 The agency did not err in basing its credibility
10 determination on Zheng’s inconsistent statements and
11 omission regarding his first entry into the United States.
12 See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (“An inconsistency and
13 an omission are . . . functionally equivalent.”). Both in
14 his application and at his initial hearing, Zheng proffered
15 June 2008 as the date of his sole entry into the United
16 States. When confronted at a later hearing with a 2000
17 removal order for “Sae-Pai Sompong,” a purported native of
18 Thailand, and evidence that Zheng’s fingerprints matched
19 those of Sompong, Zheng admitted to the prior entry.
20 Zheng’s explanations—that he forgot the entry, was under a
21 lot of pressure, and remembered later—were unavailing and
22 further undermined his credibility, particularly as they
23 contradicted his other explanation that he had told his
1 attorney about the entry. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d
2 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than
3 offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent
4 statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a
5 reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his
6 testimony.” (internal quotation marks and emphasis
7 omitted)). This inconsistency alone is sufficient support
8 for the adverse credibility determination. See Siewe v.
9 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“So a single
10 false document or a single instance of false testimony may
11 (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of
12 the alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”).
13 The adverse credibility determination is bolstered by
14 the IJ’s findings regarding Zheng’s demeanor and lack of
15 corroborating evidence. Particular deference is given to
16 the trier of fact’s assessment of demeanor. See Majidi,
17 430 F.3d at 81 n.1. And, the IJ reasonably found that
18 Zheng’s medical evidence did not corroborate his alleged
19 memory loss, as it reflected a depressive disorder and
20 anxiety, but stated Zheng had no memory problems. See Biao
21 Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An
22 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may
23 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration
1 in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate
2 testimony that has already been called into question.”).
3 Given this inconsistency, the contradictory
4 explanations, and the related demeanor and corroboration
5 problems, the IJ reasonably found Zheng not credible. See
6 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534
7 F.3d at 165-66; Siewe, 480 F.3d at 170. The adverse
8 credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three
10 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul
11 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED.
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk