Bin Yang v. Holder

13-3463
Yang v. Holder
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A201 295 507
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 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 13th day of January, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 BIN YANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-3463
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Jennifer L. Lightbody,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Todd J.
29 Cochran, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington D.C.
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Bin Yang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review
9 of an August 26, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming the
10 August 9, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”),
11 denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
12 and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture
13 (“CAT”). In re Bin Yang, No. A201 295 507 (B.I.A. Aug. 26,
14 2013), aff’g No. A201 295 507 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 9,
15 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
18 the decisions of the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of
19 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448
20 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of
21 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
22 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
23
2
1 For asylum applications like Yang’s, governed by the
2 REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the
3 totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility
4 determination on inconsistencies in asylum applicant’s
5 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
6 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8
7 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s
8 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the
9 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
10 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin
11 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
12 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
13 credibility determination.
14 First, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that
15 Yang omitted from his asylum application that he was forced
16 to perform “hard manual labor” during his three detentions
17 because he included less important details about those
18 detentions. See id. (providing that for purposes of
19 analyzing a credibility determination, “[a]n inconsistency
20 and an omission are . . . functionally equivalent”). The
21 agency was not compelled to credit his explanation that he
22 did not like to think about such things because his
23 application detailed more disturbing incidents. See Majidi
3
1 v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that
2 the agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations for
3 inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would
4 compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so).
5 The agency also did not err in finding that Yang’s
6 statements at his credible fear interview were reliably
7 transcribed and were inconsistent with his testimony
8 regarding the number of times he was detained in China. See
9 Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009)
10 (holding that the agency may consider inconsistencies
11 between credible fear interview and testimony, so long as
12 interview is conducted in a non-coercive manner and
13 accurately documented). The agency also reasonably found
14 inconsistent a friend’s letter that failed to mention Yang’s
15 alleged detentions and Yang’s testimony that the friend knew
16 of the harm he suffered in China, as well as Yang’s
17 government-issued baptism certificate and his claim that he
18 feared persecution for practicing in an unregistered church.
19 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Yang did not provide
20 compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See
21 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
22 Having questioned Yang’s credibility, the agency
23 reasonably determined that his failure to provide
4
1 corroborating evidence further undermined his credibility.
2 See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007)
3 (per curiam). Given the inconsistency and corroboration
4 findings, the agency reasonably found Yang not credible.
5 That finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of
6 removal, and CAT relief. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
7 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
8
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
5