17-1544 Wang v. Barr BIA Cohen, IJ A200 630 233 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 7th day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YONGMEI WANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1544 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Marta Bachynska, Law Offices of 24 Yevgeny Samokhleb, P.C., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 29 Assistant Director; Robert D. 30 Tennyson, Trial Attorney, Office 31 of Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 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 Petitioner Yongmei Wang, a native and citizen of the

9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 27, 2017

10 decision of the BIA affirming a September 13, 2016 decision

11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang’s application for

12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yongmei Wang, No.

14 A 200 630 233 (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2017), aff’g No. A 200 630 233

15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 13, 2016). We assume the parties’

16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

17 in this case.

18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as the agency’s final

19 order. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

20 2008). The applicable standards of review are well

21 established. See

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

22 Sessions,

, 76–77 (2d Cir. 2018).

23 In making a credibility determination, the agency must

2 1 “[c]onsider[] the totality of the circumstances” and may base

2 an adverse credibility finding based on the applicant’s

3 “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness[,] . . . the inherent

4 plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account,”

5 inconsistencies in the applicant’s or witness’s statements or

6 between those statements and other evidence, “without regard

7 to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to

8 the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant

9 factor.”

(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to

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

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

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

13 Xia Lin v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008); accord

14 Hong Fei Gao,

. Although not free of error,

15 the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported

16 by substantial evidence.

17 As an initial matter, the IJ erroneously categorized

18 Wang’s testimony as inconsistent because his application and

19 his wife’s letter omitted any reference to the minor medical

20 treatment he received after his detention. See Hong Fei Gao,

21 891 F.3d 79–81. Notwithstanding this error, the IJ

22 reasonably relied on several inconsistencies relating to

3 1 Wang’s registration of his first son, his wife’s medical

2 treatment, and how he received evidence from China.

3 Together, these inconsistencies support the credibility

4 determination. See Xiu Xia Lin,

. First,

5 Wang’s explanation that he forgot the registration date did

6 not resolve the inconsistency relating to the registration of

7 his son because he initially testified as to a specific month

8 and year and said it was a month after his son’s birth. See

9 Majidi v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005) (“A

10 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation

11 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must

12 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

13 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotations omitted)).

14 Second, Wang’s explanation that the terms “doctor” and

15 “hospital” are used interchangeably was not compelling

16 because his testimony about the private doctor provided a

17 different factual account than his application, in which he

18 asserted that his wife went to a “hospital” and underwent a

19 procedure. See id.; cf. Gurung v. Barr,

, 61–62

20 (2d Cir. 2019). Finally, the IJ was not compelled to accept

21 Wang’s alleged faulty memory to explain discrepancies in his

22 account of his receipt of medical evidence from China. See

4 1 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80–81.

2 Given these issues with Wang’s testimony, the IJ did

3 not err in concluding that Wang’s failure to provide

4 reliable corroboration further undermined his credibility

5 and prevented him from meeting his burden of proof. See

6

(b)(1)(B)(ii) (IJ may require corroboration

7 even for credible testimony); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496

(2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to

9 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility,

10 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an

11 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already

12 been called into question.”); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575

(2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he alien bears the

14 ultimate burden of introducing such evidence without

15 prompting from the IJ.”). As the IJ noted, Wang did not

16 produce documentation of his own medical treatment or his

17 arrest and detention, and he conceded that he did not

18 attempt to obtain documentation of his arrest. The IJ

19 reasonably found this testimony implausible given Wang’s

20 testimony that he was able to return to work after his 10-

21 day absence without issue. See 8 U.S.C.

22 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Siewe v. Gonzales,

, 168–

5 1 69 (2d Cir. 2007) (“The speculation that inheres in

2 inference is not ‘bald’ if the inference is made available

3 to the factfinder by record facts . . . viewed in the light

4 of common sense and ordinary experience.”).

5 Moreover, the IJ did not err in declining to give weight

6 to Wang’s documentary evidence. A letter from Wang’s wife

7 recounting his arrest was from an interested witness not

8 subject to cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to agency’s determination

10 that letter from spouse in China was entitled to “‘very little

11 evidentiary weight,’ both because it was unsworn and because

12 it was submitted by an interested witness”). The IJ

13 reasonably accorded little weight to an X-ray purportedly

14 confirming his wife’s sterilization and the accompanying

15 medical reports because the X-ray did not include Wang’s

16 wife’s name and Wang’s testimony about his receipt of the X-

17 ray and an accompanying report was inconsistent and vague.

18

Finally, the IJ did not err in determining that the

19 sterilization certificate for Wang’s wife was unreliable

20 because Wang provided the immigration court with a copy

21 containing notations not on the original. See Y.C.,

(“We defer to the agency’s determination of the weight

6 1 afforded to an alien’s documentary evidence.”).

2 In sum, the inconsistencies and the lack of reliable

3 corroboration support the adverse credibility determination

4 under the “totality of the circumstances.” 8 U.S.C.

5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The adverse credibility determination

6 is dispositive because asylum, withholding of removal, and

7 CAT relief were all based on the same factual predicate. See

8 Paul v. Gonzales,

, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

10 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

11 stays VACATED.

12 FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 14 Clerk of Court

7