Lianfeng Li v. Holder , 463 F. App'x 40 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          11-7-ag
    Li v. Holder
    BIA
    Abrams, IJ
    A089 266 793
    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 23rd day of February, two thousand twelve.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
    8                DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
    9                DENNY CHIN,
    10                    Circuit Judges.
    11       _______________________________________
    12
    13       LIANFENG LI,
    14                Petitioner,
    15
    16                      v.                                      11-7-ag
    17                                                              NAC
    18       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    19       ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    20                Respondent.
    21       _______________________________________
    22
    23       FOR PETITIONER:               Man C. Yam, New York, New York.
    24
    25       FOR RESPONDENT:               Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    26                                     General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
    27                                     Assistant Director; Judith R.
    28                                     O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office
    29                                     of Immigration Litigation, United
    30                                     States Department of Justice,
    31                                     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       Lianfeng Li, a native and citizen of the People’s
    6   Republic of China, seeks review of a December 6, 2010, order
    7   of the BIA affirming the May 21, 2009, decision of an
    8   Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied her application for
    9   asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
    10   Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).    In re Lianfeng Li, No.
    11   A089 266 793 (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 2010), aff’g No. A089 266 793
    12   (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 21, 2009).   We assume the parties’
    13   familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
    14   in this case.
    15       Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
    16   the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.     See Yan
    17   Chen v. Gonzales, 
    417 F.3d 268
    , 271 (2d Cir. 2005).     The
    18   applicable standards of review are well-established.     See
    19   
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
    20   
    562 F.3d 510
    , 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
    21       For applications such as Li’s, governed by the
    22   amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by
    23   the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the
    2
    1   totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on
    2   the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the
    3   plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his
    4   statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart
    5   of the applicant’s claim.”     See 8 U.S.C.
    6   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 
    534 F.3d 162
    ,
    7   167 (2d Cir. 2008).   We will “defer to an IJ’s credibility
    8   determination unless, from the totality of the
    9   circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
    10   could make” such a ruling.     Xiu Xia Lin, 
    534 F.3d at 167
    .
    11       The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported
    12   by substantial evidence.     The IJ reasonably based his
    13   credibility finding on the following: (1) Li’s testimony
    14   that she became interested in Christianity through a pastor
    15   in Russia, and the omission of this information in her
    16   asylum application; (2) Li’s inconsistent testimony
    17   regarding (a) when she was arrested and the number of
    18   encounters she had with Chinese officials, (b) who the
    19   police asked to sign a guarantee, (c) when she held church
    20   meetings, and (d) when she decided to leave China; (3) the
    21   inconsistency between Li’s testimony and her husband’s
    22   affidavit with regard to whether he participated in the
    3
    1   house church meeting; and (4) Li’s “flustered” demeanor.
    2   Moreover, the IJ reasonably rejected Li’s explanations for
    3   her inconsistent testimony.    See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
    
    4 F.3d 77
    , 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
    5          Given the omission, inconsistent testimony,
    6   inconsistencies between Li’s testimony and her application,
    7   and the IJ’s demeanor finding, the totality of the
    8   circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility.
    9   See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 
    534 F.3d at
    10   167.
    11          For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    12   DENIED.    As we have completed our review, any stay of
    13   removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    14   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    15   this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
    16   oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    17   Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    18   Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    19                                 FOR THE COURT:
    20                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    21
    22
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7-ag

Citation Numbers: 463 F. App'x 40

Judges: Ann, Cabranes, Chin, Debra, Denny, Jose, Livingston

Filed Date: 2/23/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023