18-630 Ren v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 302 668

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 18th day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZHIQIANG REN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-630 17 NAC 18 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Wei Gu, Albertson, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Linda S. 28 Wernery, Assistant Director; 29 Steven K. Uejio, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 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 Zhiqiang Ren, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 13,

7 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a June 29, 2017 decision

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

9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

10 (“CAT”). In re Zhiqiang Ren, No. A206 302 668 (B.I.A. Feb.

11 13, 2018), aff’g No. A206 302 668 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June

12 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

13 underlying facts and procedural history.

14 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s

15 decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.

16 Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir. 2005). The

17 applicable standards of review are well established. See

18

(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,

(2d Cir. 2018).

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 inherent plausibility of the 2 1 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the

2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,

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

4 without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or

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

6

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

7 Mukasey,

, 163–64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial

8 evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ren was not

9 credible as to his claim that family planning officials and

10 police harmed him for helping his wife escape officials’

11 efforts to terminate her pregnancy under China’s family

12 planning policy.

13 The agency reasonably questioned the plausibility of

14 Ren’s testimony that he and his wife were able to escape from

15 seven or eight family planning officials when his wife was

16 nine months pregnant. See

(b)(1)(B)(iii);

17 Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2007)

18 (recognizing that adverse credibility determination may be

19 based on inherent implausibility in applicant’s story if the

20 “finding is tethered to record evidence” or based on common

21 sense). When given an opportunity to explain how their

22 escape was possible, Ren became evasive and unresponsive,

23 which the agency reasonably found further impugned his 3 1 credibility. See

(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also

2 Majidi v. Gonzales,

, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005)

3 (recognizing that particular deference is given to the trier

4 of fact’s assessment of demeanor). And, when pressed for

5 specific details about the escape, Ren testified

6 inconsistently regarding whether family planning officials

7 called police immediately, whether he and his wife escaped in

8 a car or electric bike, and whether he knew if family planning

9 officials attempted to chase after them or not. See 8 U.S.C.

10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi,

n.1.

11 Given the implausibility, demeanor, and inconsistency

12 findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is

13 supported by substantial evidence and was dispositive of

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

15 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2006).

16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

17 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

18 stays VACATED.

19 FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 21 Clerk of Court

4