Qiu v. Lynch , 604 F. App'x 71 ( 2015 )

14-2114
Qiu v. Lynch
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A087 568 649
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 19th day of May, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JIAN GUO QIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-2114
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,1
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted
for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., as the
Respondent in this case.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Mouren Wu, New York, N.Y.
2
3 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting
4 Assistant Attorney General; Cindy
5 S. Ferrier, Assistant Director;
6 Catherine Bye, Trial Attorney,
7 Office of Immigration Litigation,
8 U.S. Department of Justice,
9 Washington, D.C.
10
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
14 is DENIED.
15 Petitioner Jian Guo Qiu, a native and citizen of the
16 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 3, 2014,
17 decision of the BIA affirming a September 10, 2012, decision
18 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying Qiu’s application
19 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
20 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Guo Qiu, No.
21 A087 568 649 (B.I.A. June 3, 2014), aff’g No. A087 568 649
22 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 10, 2012). We assume the
23 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
24 procedural history of this case.
25
2
1 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
2 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, excluding from
3 consideration the basis for denying relief that the BIA
4 rejected (that the asylum application was untimely). Xue
5 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d
6 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
7 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
8 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency
9 may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base
10 a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the
11 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies within and
12 between his statements and other record evidence “without
13 regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s
14 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
15 F.3d at 163-64.
16 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
17 determination that Qiu was not credible. The agency
18 reasonably relied on Qiu’s demeanor, noting that his
19 testimony was evasive and unresponsive at times. See
20 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales,
3
1 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). The agency’s demeanor
2 finding and the overall credibility determination are
3 bolstered by record inconsistencies. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S.
4 Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see also
5 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. Qiu’s evidence was
6 inconsistent regarding, among other things, where his
7 parents were employed, when he learned the reason for his
8 arrest, and whether his witness attended the school where
9 his arrest occurred. Neither Qiu nor his witness provided
10 compelling explanations for those inconsistencies. See
11 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
12 Having questioned Qiu’s credibility, the agency
13 reasonably relied further on his failure to provide certain
14 corroborating evidence. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d
15 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). He did not provide a letter from
16 his ex-girlfriend who was with him at the time of his
17 arrest. A letter from his friend omitted any mention of his
18 arrest, detention, and beating, while the letter from his
19 mother failed to provide any details of those incidents,
20 stating only that Qui had been arrested.
4
1 Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and corroboration
2 findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is
3 supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534
4 F.3d at 164-67. That determination is dispositive of Qiu’s
5 claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
6 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
5