Jiang v. Garland ( 2022 )

20-977
Jiang v. Garland
BIA
Loprest, IJ
A205 436 949
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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 30th day of August, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
8 EUNICE C. LEE,
9 MYRNA PÉREZ,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LING JIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 20-977
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Vlad Kuzmin, Kuzmin & Assocs.,
24 P.C., New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: John V. Coghlan, Deputy Assistant
27 Attorney General; Jessica A.
28 Dawgert, Senior Litigation
29 Counsel; Jacob A. Bashyrov, Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
1 Litigation, United States
2 Department of Justice, Washington,
3 D.C.
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 GRANTED.*
8 Petitioner Ling Jiang, a native and citizen of the
9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 5, 2020,
10 decision of the BIA affirming an April 25, 2018, decision of
11 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jiang’s application for
12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ling Jiang, No.
14 A205-436-949 (B.I.A. Mar. 5, 2020), aff’g No. A 205-436-949
15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 25, 2018). We assume the parties’
16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
17 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s
* Judge Sullivan would deny the petition for review in light of the
“particular deference” owed to the credibility findings made by an
Immigration Judge, who “has the unique advantage among all officials
involved in the process of having heard directly from the applicant.”
Li v. INS, 453 F.3d 129, 135–36 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005)
(noting the “particular weight” we afford to “the IJ’s assessment of [a]
petitioner’s demeanor,” and “underscor[ing] the general significance of
such assessments to credibility findings” (emphasis added)). He
therefore respectfully dissents.
2
1 decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s
2 timeliness finding that the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong
3 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.
4 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
5 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.
6 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse
7 credibility determination under substantial evidence
8 standard).
9 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
10 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
11 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of
12 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the
13 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,
14 the internal consistency of each such statement . . . without
15 regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
16 goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other
17 relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Although
18 “[w]e defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless,
19 . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make
20 such an adverse credibility ruling,” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
21 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008), we remand when, as here,
3
1 there are errors in the findings underlying the adverse
2 credibility determination and we are not “confident that the
3 agency would reach the same result upon a reconsideration
4 cleansed of errors,” Gurung v. Barr, 929 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir.
5 2019) (quotation marks omitted).
6 The IJ found that Jiang was not credible as to his claim
7 that he was detained and beaten for practicing Christianity
8 in China. The IJ found that Jiang gave the impression that
9 his testimony was memorized because (1) he became
10 unresponsive on cross-examination when asked questions
11 similar to those he had answered concisely on direct
12 examination, and (2) he lacked candor by failing to testify
13 to details provided in his written application. Although we
14 defer to an IJ’s assessment of demeanor, see Majidi v.
15 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005), these findings
16 are not supported by the record.
17 The IJ found Jiang unresponsive when he could not
18 remember the name on the false passport a smuggler gave him
19 to travel to the United States, but he testified consistently
20 on direct and cross that he could not remember the full name.
21 His inability to remember a fact does not amount to
4
1 unresponsiveness. The IJ further cited Jiang’s testimony
2 regarding his stay at a hotel with his smuggler, but that
3 testimony was confusing, not unresponsive, and thus did not
4 support the IJ’s conclusion that Jiang’s testimony was
5 memorized. The IJ also found that Jiang’s testimony
6 regarding his beating and the food he ate in detention lacked
7 detail when compared to his application and thus showed a
8 lack of candor, but Jiang responded candidly to the questions
9 his attorney asked and neither the IJ nor the Government’s
10 attorney asked him any questions about those aspects of his
11 claim, much less asked for more details. See Jin Shui Qiu
12 v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 152 & n.6 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[I]f
13 the [DHS] or IJ has nagging doubts about an applicant’s
14 credibility due to the spareness of h[is] testimony . . . it
15 would seem prudent for the [DHS] or IJ to pose questions aimed
16 at eliciting inconsistent or inherently implausible
17 statements.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Shi Liang
18 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007).
19 Accordingly, the agency’s demeanor findings are not supported
20 by the record, and we do not defer to them.
21 The only other basis for the adverse credibility
5
1 determination that the BIA affirmed was the IJ’s finding that
2 Jiang made inconsistent statements regarding how long he was
3 detained. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d
4 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[W]e may consider only those issues
5 that formed the basis for that decision.”). That finding was
6 erroneous because Jiang’s statements were not inconsistent:
7 he stated in his application that he was detained for “over
8 half a month,” and he testified that he was detained for “more
9 than 10 days.” See Gurung, 929 F.3d at 61 (“Credibility should
10 not be questioned based on trivial differences in word choices
11 alone.”).
12 We remand because the agency’s adverse credibility
13 determination is not supported by any error-free findings.
14 Id. at 62. The agency’s remaining findings do not render
15 remand futile: if, on remand, the agency concludes that Jiang
16 stated a credible claim of past persecution, then he will be
17 entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution.
18 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (presumption of well-founded
19 fear of persecution arising from past persecution is rebutted
20 by fundamental change in circumstances or ability to safely
21 relocate in country of nationality).
6
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is
3 REMANDED for further proceedings. All pending motions and
4 applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
7 Clerk of Court
7