Li Qiao Zheng v. Holder , 469 F. App'x 14 ( 2012 )

11-2264-ag
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
Mulligan, IJ
A089 225 207
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 24th day of April, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LI QIAO ZHENG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-2264-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Briana F. Isiminger, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Luis E. Perez, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Ari Nazarov,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Li Qiao Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 13, 2011, order of
7 the BIA affirming the June 19, 2009, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Thomas Mulligan, which denied his application
9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Qiao Zheng,
11 No. A089 225 207 (B.I.A. May 13, 2011), aff’g No. A089 225
12 207 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 19, 2009). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the decision of the IJ as modified and supplemented by the
17 BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.
18 2005); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520,
19 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are
20 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also
21 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
22 For applications such as Zheng’s, governed by the
23 amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by
2
1 the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the
2 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on
3 the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the
4 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his
5 statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart
6 of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
8 167 (2d Cir. 2008). We will “defer to an IJ’s credibility
9 determination unless, from the totality of the
10 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
11 could make” such a ruling. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
12 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported
13 by substantial evidence. The IJ reasonably based his
14 credibility finding on the following: (1) the memorized
15 character of Zheng’s testimony; and (2) Zheng’s inconsistent
16 testimony regarding (a) whether his wife underwent an IUD
17 insertion or sterilization, and (b) the duration of time
18 that Zheng saved his plane ticket in his wallet. Moreover,
19 the IJ reasonably rejected Zheng’s explanations for his
20 inconsistent testimony. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d
21 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Given the inconsistent testimony
22 and the IJ’s demeanor finding, the totality of the
3
1 circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility
2 determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
3 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
11 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
14
15
4