19-3435 Zheng v. Garland BIA Cassin, IJ A208 167 168 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 1st day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 MYRNA PÉREZ, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JINLONG ZHENG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3435 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, Esq., Karikari & 25 Associates, P.C., New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 1 Assistant Director; Elizabeth R. 2 Chapman, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC.

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Jinlong Zheng, a native and citizen of the

11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 7,

12 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a February 26, 2018

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

14 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jinlong Zheng, No. A 208 167

16 168 (B.I.A. Oct. 7, 2019), aff’g No. A 208 167 168 (Immig. Ct.

17 N.Y.C. Feb. 26, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity

18 with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19 We consider the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA.

20 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005).

21 We review the agency’s adverse credibility determination for

22 substantial evidence. See

(b)(4)(B); Hong

23 Fei Gao v. Sessions,

(2d Cir. 2018).

24 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 1 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility

2 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of

3 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the

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

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

6 without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or

7 falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any

8 other relevant factor.”

(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We

9 defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from

10 the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no

11 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility

12 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

13 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao,

.

14 Zheng argues that he presented a credible claim of

15 religious persecution. We conclude that substantial evidence

16 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The

17 agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies

18 regarding Zheng’s statements and evidence as to his wife’s

19 location, his introduction to Christianity, his fear of

20 sterilization, his efforts to obtain documents to flee China,

21 and his arrest. See

(b)(1)(B)(ii). In

3 1 addition, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that

2 Zheng’s 2012 tourist visa to visit the United States was

3 revoked because his visa application contained fraudulent

4 documents. See

(b)(1)(B)(iii). The agency

5 did not err in concluding that his willingness to use

6 fraudulent documents undermined his credibility because Zheng

7 applied for his tourist visa before his alleged introduction

8 to Christianity and persecution. Cf. Siewe v. Gonzales, 480

(2d Cir. 2007) (listing circumstances where

10 false documents may not undermine credibility, including

11 where “fraudulent documents . . . were created

12 to escape persecution”). The agency did not err in declining

13 to credit Zheng’s explanation for these inconsistencies. See

14 Majidi v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005) (“A

15 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation

16 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must

17 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be

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

19 omitted)); Siewe, 480 F.3d at 167 (holding that where there

20 are “two permissible views of the evidence,” we defer to the

21 agency’s choice “so long as the deductions are not illogical

4 1 or implausible” (quotation marks omitted)). Finally, the

2 agency reasonably relied on Zheng’s failure to provide

3 documentary evidence corroborating events in China or his

4 practice of Christianity in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.

5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales,

, 273

6 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or

7 her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of

8 corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to

9 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into

10 question.”).

11 In sum, given the multiple inconsistencies and lack of

12 corroboration, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

13 adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.

14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin,

; see also

15 Likai Gao v. Barr,

, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020)

16 (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from

17 showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.

18 Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more

19 forcefully.”). The adverse credibility determination is

20 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief

21 because all three forms of relief relied on the same factual

5 1 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,

(2d

2 Cir. 2006).

3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

4 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

5 stays VACATED.

6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 8 Clerk of Court 9

6