20-1593 Xiaojie v. Garland BIA Segal, IJ A205 979 908 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 7th day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JIANG XIAOJIE, AKA XIOJIE JIANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1593 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Esq., Sherman Oaks, 25 CA. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony C. 1 Payne, Assistant Director, Judith 2 R. O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, 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 Jiang Xiaojie, a native and citizen of the

11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 28, 2020,

12 decision of the BIA affirming a June 14, 2018, decision of an

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

14 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jiang Xiaojie, No. A205 979

16 908 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2020), aff’g No. A205 979 908 (Immig.

17 Ct. N.Y. City June 14, 2018). We assume the parties’

18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions

20 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of

21 Homeland Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). We review

22 adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence,

23 see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,

(2d Cir. 2018),

2 1 and we treat the agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive

2 unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

3 conclude to the contrary,”

(b)(4)(B).

4 While we apply a deferential standard of review to an

5 IJ’s credibility determination, “[w]e must assess whether the

6 agency has provided specific, cogent reasons for the adverse

7 credibility finding and whether those reasons bear a

8 legitimate nexus to the finding.” Hong Fei Gao,

77 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

10 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

11 relevant facts, a trier of fact may base a credibility

12 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s

13 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . the consistency

14 of such statements with other evidence of record . . . and

15 any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without

16 regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood

17 goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim . . . .” 8 U.S.C.

18 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

19 Substantial evidence here supports the agency’s adverse

20 credibility determination.

3 1 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies related

2 to the sole basis of Xiaojie’s claims, his alleged two-week

3 detention for attending an underground Christian church. See

4

(b)(1)(B)(iii). Xiaojie’s and his sister’s

5 testimony were inconsistent as to whether his sister visited

6 him while he was detained, whether their mother visited him

7 in detention, who told his sister he was detained, when she

8 learned of that detention (before or after his release), who

9 told their mother to pay bond for his release, and whether

10 his sister knew that individual. These inconsistencies

11 provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility

12 finding because they undermine Xiaojie’s claim that he was

13 detained, which is the sole basis for his claims for relief.

14 See Likai Gao v. Barr,

, 145 n.8 (2d Cir.

15 2020)(“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien

16 from showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.

17 Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more

18 forcefully.”). Xiaojie’s argument that the inconsistencies

19 are minor fails because the agency “may rely on any

20 inconsistency” where, as here, “the ‘totality of the

21 circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not

4 1 credible.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,

(2d

2 Cir. 2008) (quoting

(b)(1)(B)(iii))).

3 While CAT relief and withholding of removal may be

4 available notwithstanding an adverse credibility ruling as to

5 asylum, the adverse credibility determination is dispositive

6 of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all

7 three claims were 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

5