17-1463 Pan v. Barr BIA Zagzoug, IJ A205 817 481

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 15th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AI LING PAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1463 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jan Potemkin, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Bernard A. 27 Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Kate D. Balaban, 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 Ai Ling Pan, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 12, 2017,

7 decision of the BIA affirming an August 11, 2016, decision of

8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of

9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

10 (“CAT”). In re Ai Ling Pan, No. A205 817 481 (B.I.A. Apr.

11 12, 2017), aff’g No. A205 817 481 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug.

12 11, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

15 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of

16 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review

18 are well established. See

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

19 Lin v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008).

20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility

22 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of

23 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the 2 1 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,

2 [and] the internal consistency of each such statement . . .

3 without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or

4 falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim . . . .”

5

(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin,

at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s

7 determination that Pan was not credible as to her claim that

8 family-planning officials forced her to have an abortion.

9 The agency reasonably relied in part on Pan’s demeanor.

10 See

(b)(1)(B)(iii); Majidi v. Gonzales, 430

, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (recognizing that particular

12 weight is given to the trier of fact’s assessment of

13 demeanor). That finding is supported by the record, which

14 reflects that Pan was unresponsive when testifying about

15 numerous aspects of her living arrangements with her fiancé

16 with whom she purportedly became pregnant.

17 The demeanor finding and the overall credibility

18 determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies. See

19 Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d

20 Cir. 2006). The agency reasonably found Pan’s testimony

21 inconsistent regarding when she moved in with her fiancé and

22 where they lived when they first lived together. See

23

(b)(1)(B)(iii). 3 1 Having questioned Pan’s credibility, the agency

2 reasonably relied further on her failure to rehabilitate her

3 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. “An

4 applicant’s failure to corroborate . . . her testimony may

5 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in

6 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony

7 that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v.

8 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007). The IJ reasonably

9 declined to afford weight to the unsworn letter from Pan’s

10 mother because it was prepared by an interested witness who

11 was not available for cross-examination and it was altered

12 without explanation with respect to the date that Pan

13 “confirmed” her relationship with her fiancé. See Y.C. v.

14 Holder,

(2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to the

15 agency’s decision to afford little weight to a relative’s

16 letter from China because it was unsworn and from an

17 interested witness); see also Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25

, 215 (BIA 2010) (finding unsworn letters

19 from an alien’s family insufficient to provide substantial

20 support for the alien’s claims because the letters were from

21 interested witnesses not subject to cross-examination),

22 overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677

4

(2d Cir. 2012). There is no other evidence

2 corroborating Pan’s relationship, pregnancy, or abortion.

3 Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and corroboration

4 findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is

5 supported by substantial evidence and is dispositive of

6 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v.

7 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2006).

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal

10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition

12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument

13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of

14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule

15 34.1(b).

16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 18 Clerk of Court

5