20-1527 Fang v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A088 347 494 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 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 8th day of November, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JIAN ZHOU FANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1527 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Robert Tsigler, Law Offices of 25 Robert Tsigler, PLLC, New York, 26 NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Cindy S. 3 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 4 Michelle Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 Civil Division, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC.

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 Petitioner Jian Zhou Fang, a native and citizen of the

14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 22, 2020,

15 decision of the BIA affirming a June 18, 2018, decision of an

16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,

17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Zhou Fang, No. A 088-

19 347-494 (B.I.A. Apr. 22, 2020), aff’g No. A 088-347-494 (Immig.

20 Ct. N.Y.C. June 18, 2018). We assume the parties’

21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

22 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s

23 and the BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland

24 Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse

25 credibility determinations under a substantial evidence

2 1 standard, see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,

(2d

2 Cir. 2018), and treat the agency’s fact-finding as

3 “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

4 compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C.

5 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the totality of the

6 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may

7 base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency

8 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral

9 statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such

10 statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with

11 other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an

12 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of

13 the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.”

14

(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s

15 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the

16 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder

17 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin

18 v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei

19 Gao,

. Here, substantial evidence supports the

20 agency’s determination that Fang was not credible as to his

21 claim that he and his family were persecuted for practicing

3 1 Christianity.

2 The agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies

3 in Fang’s statements and between his statements and other

4 evidence. The record reveals inconsistent testimony

5 regarding the year Fang began practicing Christianity, the

6 number of times his father has been arrested, whether his

7 younger brother was arrested, whether his mother was still

8 required to report regularly to the police following her

9 arrest for attending an unregistered church, and whether the

10 police came looking for Fang at his mother’s house as recently

11 as a month prior to his merits hearing in 2018. The agency

12 was not required to accept Fang’s explanations for these

13 inconsistencies because they either did not resolve the

14 discrepancies or were based on unsupported allegations of

15 translation error. See Majidi v. Gonzales,

, 80

16 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a

17 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to

18 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-

19 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal

20 quotation marks omitted)). The inconsistencies provide

21 substantial evidence for the adverse credibility

4 1 determination. See

(b)(1)(B)(iii); Gao v.

2 Barr,

, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single

3 inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ

4 was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies

5 would so preclude even more forcefully.”).

6 The adverse credibility determination is dispositive of

7 Fang’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

8 relief because all three claims were based on the same factual

9 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,

, 156–57 (2d

10 Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not reach the agency’s

11 alternative grounds for denying relief. See INS v.

12 Bagamasbad,

(1976) (“As a general rule, courts

13 and agencies are not required to make findings on issues . . .

14 unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

17 stays VACATED.

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

5