17-894 Yuan v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A205 033 736

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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 13th day of March, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JIANG YUAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-894 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Vincent S. Wong, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony P. 27 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 28 Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Petitioner Jiang Yuan, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 28,

7 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a July 8, 2016 decision of

8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yuan’s application for

9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jiang Yuan, No. A

11 205 033 736 (B.I.A. Feb. 28, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 033 736

12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 8, 2016). We assume the parties’

13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

14 in this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

16 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t

17 of Homeland Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). We review

18 adverse credibility determinations under a substantial

19 evidence standard. See

(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin

20 v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008). The

2 1 governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides as

2 follows:

3 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 4 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 5 credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, 6 or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the 7 consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s 8 written and oral statements . . . the internal 9 consistency of each such statement, the consistency 10 of such statements with other evidence of record . 11 . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such 12 statements, . . . or any other relevant factor. 13 14

(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s

15 credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no

16 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility

17 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin,

; see 8 U.S.C.

18 § 1252(b)(4)(B). As discussed below, substantial evidence

19 supports the agency’s determination that Yuan was not

20 credible.

21 As the IJ found, Yuan’s testimony and his asylum

22 application were inconsistent in several material aspects.

23 First, his testimony that he had never attended a

24 government-supported church in China contradicted his

25 statements in his application that he did attend a

26 government-supported church a few times after his village

3 1 church fell into disrepair. Second, his testimony that he

2 and fellow church members did not renovate their private

3 Catholic church because they feared arrest and hostility

4 from Buddhist villagers contradicted the statements in his

5 application, in which he stated that a government official

6 prohibited renovation of the church. Third, Yuan’s

7 application stated that he fired the employee who reported

8 him to police on that employee’s first day of work (in

9 2010), but Yuan testified that the employee had worked for

10 him since 2008, then that the employee worked for him for

11 10 or 20 days before reporting him to the police, and that

12 he could not remember when he hired the employee.

13 The agency reasonably concluded that these

14 inconsistencies called into question the entirety of Yuan’s

15 claim as they relate to his religious practice and the main

16 incident of alleged persecution. See Siewe v. Gonzales,

17

(2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] single false

18 document or a single instance of false testimony may (if

19 attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the

20 alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”). The

21 IJ was not required to accept Yuan’s explanation that he 4 1 could not remember the events in question, especially

2 because they were included in the application and Yuan did

3 not provide evidence that he suffered injuries affecting

4 his memory. Majidi v. Gonzales,

(2d

5 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a

6 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to

7 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-

8 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.”

9 (internal quotation marks omitted)).

10 The IJ’s negative demeanor finding bolsters the adverse

11 credibility ruling.

(b)(1)(B)(iii) (adverse

12 credibility ruling may be based on “demeanor, candor, or

13 responsiveness”). The IJ found that when Yuan was questioned

14 about his attendance at a government church, he “appeared to

15 be struggling to come up with a viable explanation rather

16 than testifying from actual memory.” We generally defer to

17 such demeanor findings because the IJ is “in the best position

18 to evaluate whether apparent problems in the witness’s

19 testimony suggest a lack of credibility or, rather, can be

20 attributed to an innocent cause such as difficulty

5 1 understanding the question.” Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of

2 Justice,

(2d Cir. 2005).

3 The agency reasonably concluded that Yuan’s credibility

4 was further undermined by his lack of reliable corroboration.

5 See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007)

6 (“An applicant’s failure to corroborate his . . . testimony

7 may bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration

8 in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate

9 testimony that has already been called into question.”).

10 Yuan did not fully explain why he failed to submit a letter

11 from his parents, who allegedly bailed him out of detention

12 and who were practicing Catholics themselves. Yuan also

13 failed to submit any evidence that he owned a business in

14 China, any letters from the members of his Catholic church in

15 China, or any letters or testimony from individuals at his

16 church in the United States. The IJ reasonably accorded

17 diminished weight to Yuan’s medical record and arrest warrant

18 because these items were not authenticated; in particular,

19 Yuan could not explain how he came to possess the arrest

20 warrant. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that the weight afforded to 6 1 an applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings “lies

2 largely within the discretion of the IJ” (internal quotation

3 marks and brackets omitted)).

4 In sum, the inconsistencies between Yuan’s testimony and

5 application, combined with the negative demeanor finding and

6 lack of reliable corroboration, provide substantial evidence

7 for the adverse credibility ruling. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534

8 F.3d at 167. Because all of Yuan’s claims were based on the

9 same factual predicate, the adverse credibility determination

10 is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

11 relief. Paul v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir.

12 2006).

13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

14 DENIED.

15 FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 17 Clerk of Court

7