The opinion
14-3517
Chen v. Lynch
BIA
Rohan, IJ
A089 113 632
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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 25th day of November, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 QUAN CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-3517
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, Law Office of Michael
25 Brown, New York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
28 Assistant Attorney General; Russell
29 J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation
1 Counsel; John D. Williams, Trial
2 Attorney, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, United States
4 Department of Justice, Washington,
5 D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
10 DENIED.
11 Petitioner Quan Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
12 Republic of China, seeks review of a September 2, 2014, decision
13 of the BIA affirming an April 24, 2013, decision of an
14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for asylum,
15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
16 Torture (“CAT”). In re Quan Chen, No. A089 113 632 (B.I.A. Sep.
17 2, 2014), aff’g No. A089 113 632 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 24,
18 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
19 facts and procedural history in this case.
20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
21 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528
22 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
24 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
2
1 For asylum applications like Chen’s, governed by the REAL
2 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
3 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the
4 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or
5 witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or
6 witness’s account,” and inconsistencies in an applicant’s
7 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
8 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
9 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
10 In this case, the adverse credibility determination is
11 supported by substantial evidence.
12 Chen claimed that he was arrested, detained and beaten for
13 attending an underground Christian church in China. Chen
14 submitted a letter from a government-sponsored church in China
15 stating that he accepted Jesus Christ as savior on December 15,
16 2007. Chen did not mention attending a government-sponsored
17 church in his application. Chen testified that he began
18 attending the underground church on December 15, 2007, the same
19 day that his letter confirmed his attendance at the
20 government-sponsored church. When asked to explain, Chen
21 stated that he needed proof of his Christian faith and could
3
1 not obtain documentation from his underground church. The IJ
2 reasonably declined to credit Chen’s explanation. Majidi v.
3 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Indeed, Chen could
4 not explain why a government-sponsored church would provide a
5 letter confirming his attendance on a specific date if he had
6 not, in fact, attended on that date.
7 The IJ also found that Chen gave inconsistent testimony as
8 to why he has not been baptized. Chen explained that: (1) he
9 was not prepared; (2) he claimed he had to first attend baptism
10 classes but could not because of work; and (3) he did not want
11 to. While the first two reasons are not inconsistent with one
12 another, the latter explanation contradicts the first two. Xiu
13 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
14 The IJ also properly relied on Chen’s vague and
15 inconsistent testimony concerning his church attendance in the
16 United States. Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d
17 Cir. 2003), overruled in part on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin
18 v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir. 2007) (en
19 banc). First, Chen could not name the pastor from his church
20 with whom Chen posed in a photograph he submitted. Second, Chen
21 testified that he attends church once every two to three weeks,
4
1 but then testified that he had not been in “a long time” because
2 the sermons are in English. He then changed his testimony,
3 stating that he stopped attending because he was bothered by
4 the church’s demands for donations. The IJ was not required
5 to credit Chen’s inconsistent explanations. Majidi, 430 F.3d
6 at 80-81.
7 Finally, the IJ relied on his observations of Chen’s
8 demeanor in finding him not credible. We generally afford
9 particular deference to an IJ’s assessment of an applicant’s
10 demeanor, especially when those observations are supported by
11 specific inconsistencies in the record. Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t
12 of Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir. 2005); Li Hua Lin v. U.S.
13 Dep't of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 Considering the foregoing, the IJ’s adverse credibility
15 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. This finding
17 was sufficient to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
18 relief, as all three claims were based on the same factual
19 predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
20 2006) (withholding); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
21 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT).
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
3 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
4 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
5 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
6 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
7 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
8 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6