Opinion
19-1954 NAC
05-14-2021
LIANJUN WANG, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
FOR PETITIONER: Jim Li, Jim Li & Associates, P.C., Flushing, NY FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Remi da Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges.
FOR PETITIONER:
Jim Li, Jim Li & Associates, P.C., Flushing, NY
FOR RESPONDENT:
Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Remi da Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition is DENIED.
Petitioner Lianjun Wang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a June 17, 2019 BIA decision affirming a January 30, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ"), which denied Wang's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Lianjun Wang, No. A 205 610 756 (B.I.A. Jun. 17, 2019), aff'g No. A 205 610 756 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 30, 2018). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
We have reviewed the IJ's decision as modified by the BIA — i.e., minus the basis for denying relief that the BIA declined to consider. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).
"Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, or any other relevant factor." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). "We defer . . . to an IJ's credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling." Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76.
We deny Wang's petition because, taken cumulatively, Wang's inconsistencies provide substantial evidence in support of the agency's adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (holding that "cumulative effect of . . . inconsistencies reasonably could have affected the IJ's evaluation of . . . credibility").
Wang was inconsistent about when the Chinese government informed him that he needed to move, whether he moved in 2009 or 2010, and whether his sister signed a compensation agreement she allegedly helped broker for him and his father after their home was demolished. Wang also undermined his credibility by using the address of the purportedly demolished home when he applied for a visa to come to the United States in 2011. He did not have compelling explanations for these discrepancies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) ("A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony." (internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original)).
The agency also reasonably relied on Wang's failure to corroborate his testimony with reliable evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) ("Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence."); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) ("An applicant's failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question."). The agency did not err in declining to afford significant weight to Wang's documents because the August 2008 relocation notice conflicted with Wang's testimony that he received notice in October 2008; the letter from Wang's neighbor was unsworn; and the neighbor, unidentified photographer, and author of the medical record were not available for cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that the weight of the evidence is a matter of agency discretion and deferring to agency's decision to afford little weight to spouse's unsworn letter); see also In re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010) (letters from alien's friends and family were insufficient to provide substantial support for alien's claims because they were from interested witnesses not subject to cross-examination), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 133-38 (2d Cir. 2012). The alleged government documents were also unauthenticated. See Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 214 n.5 ("[T]he failure to attempt to prove the authenticity of a document . . . is significant."); see also Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (explaining that Court affords IJ "considerable flexibility in determining the authenticity of . . . documents from the totality of the evidence and in using documents found to be authentic in making an overall assessment of the credibility of a petitioner's testimony and, ultimately, of h[is] persecution claim"). And as the IJ noted, Wang failed to submit more probative documents, such as a letter from his sister, who Wang claimed witnessed relevant events and helped him broker the compensation agreement.
The agency also faulted Wang for omitting from his written declarations that he lived with his sister and other people before and after his home was demolished. Even assuming error in this finding, see Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 78-79 (requiring IJ to consider whether omitted "facts are ones that a credible petitioner would reasonably have been expected to disclose"), the other findings provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility determination, see Gurung v. Barr, 929 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2019) (noting that remand to the agency would be futile "whenever the reviewing panel is confident that the agency would reach the same result upon a reconsideration cleansed of errors" (internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original)). --------
Given the inconsistencies in Wang's testimony and the lack of reliable corroboration, the agency's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. The adverse credibility determination is dispositive because asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief are all based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe
Clerk of Court