17-3704 Jin v. Barr BIA Cassin, IJ A202 039 163/164/165 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 9th day of August, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ZHENGLONG JIN, HONG ZHOU, XIAO 15 ZHEN JIN, 16 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. 17-3704 20 NAC 21 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 22 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PETITIONERS: Louis H. Klein, The Kasen Law 28 Firm, PLLC, Flushing, NY. 29 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Mary Jane 3 Candaux, Assistant Director; Remi 4 da Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

12 is DENIED.

13 Zhenglong Jin and his wife Hong Zhou, natives and

14 citizens of China, and their minor child Xiao Zhen Jin, a

15 native of South Korea and citizen of China, seek review of an

16 October 16, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a March 22,

17 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum,

18 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

19 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhenglong Jin, Hong Zhou,

20 Xiao Zhen Jin, Nos. A 202 039 163/164/165 (B.I.A. Oct. 16,

21 2017), aff’g Nos. A 202 039 163/164/165 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City

, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

23 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

24 Jin’s counsel has submitted essentially the same brief

25 used for his BIA appeal, and contests only one finding 2 1 underlying the adverse credibility determination.

2 Accordingly, counsel has waived review of the following

3 determinations: (1) inconsistencies in Jin’s statements and

4 between his statements and those of his wife regarding the

5 location of Jin’s daughter when he was released from

6 detention, whether Jin has a brother in the United States,

7 and whether Jin and his wife received a fine receipt; and (2)

8 Jin’s failure to rehabilitate his testimony with reliable

9 corroborative evidence. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426

, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Issues not sufficiently

11 argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will

12 not be addressed on appeal.” (quoting Norton v. Sam’s Club,

13

(2d Cir. 1998))). The waiver is significant

14 because, as discussed below, these findings support the

15 adverse credibility determination in this case. See Shunfu

16 Li v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008).

17 Even absent waiver, we would deny the petition because

18 the adverse credibility determination is supported by

19 substantial evidence. See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,

(2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility

21 determination under substantial evidence standard). 3 1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances,” a factfinder

2 “may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency

3 between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements .

4 . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and]

5 the consistency of such statements with other evidence of

6 record.”

(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to

7 an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality

8 of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-

9 finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu

10 Xia Lin v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008); accord

11 Hong Fei Gao,

.

12 The agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies

13 between Jin’s prior statements and his testimony and that of

14 his wife to support the adverse credibility determination.

15 See

(b)(1)(B)(iii). The record reflects

16 inconsistent statements about whether Jin missed any weekly

17 police check-ins, whether he told the police about trips to

18 South Korea, Turkey and Egypt, the location of his daughter

19 at the time of his release from detention, and whether he had

20 a brother living in the United States. The agency was not

21 compelled to accept the explanations provided by Jin and Zhou, 4 1 which largely amounted to claims of forgetfulness or

2 confusion. See Majidi v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir.

3 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible

4 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief;

5 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be

6 compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks

7 omitted)).

8 Having questioned Jin’s credibility, the agency also

9 reasonably relied on his failure to rehabilitate his

10 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. See Biao

11 Yang v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007) (“An

12 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may

13 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in

14 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony

15 that has already been called into question.”). The agency

16 was not required to credit letters from Jin’s father and a

17 friend in China. See Y.C. v. Holder,

(2d

18 Cir. 2013) (holding that “[w]e defer to the agency’s

19 determination of the weight afforded to an alien’s

20 documentary evidence” and deferring to decision to afford

21 little weight to spouse’s letter because it was unsworn and 5 1 from an interested witness).

2 Although the IJ’s decision may have overstated

3 inconsistencies regarding the fine receipt and between Jin’s

4 and his wife’s testimony about Jin’s brother, given the

5 multiple inconsistencies identified above and the lack of

6 reliable corroboration, the adverse credibility determination

7 is supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534

8 F.3d at 165-66. That 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 v.

11 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2006).

12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

13 DENIED.

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

6