# Ming Fei Jiang v. Holder > Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · June 24, 2013 · 523 F. App'x 23 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/931043 ## Case - **Full name:** MING FEI JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - **Decided:** June 24, 2013 - **Citations:** 523 F. App'x 23 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Pooler, Wesley, Lynch - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/931043 ## Opinion text 11-2802 BIA Jiang v. Holder Weisel, IJ A087 441 504 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 Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 24th day of June, two thousand twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MING FEI JIANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 11-2802 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael 24 Brown, New York, N.Y. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Anthony W. Norwood, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Colin J. Tucker, 29 Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, D.C. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Ming Fei Jiang, a native and citizen of 10 China, seeks review of a June 27, 2011, order of the BIA, 11 affirming a January 26, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge 12 (“IJ”) Robert Weisel, denying his application for asylum, 13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming Fei Jiang, No. A087 441 15 504 (B.I.A. June 27, 2011), aff’g No. A087 441 504 (Immig. 16 Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 26, 2010). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 18 in this case. 19 Because the Board’s reasoning “closely tracks” the 20 IJ’s, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 21 “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 22 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency’s findings of fact, 23 including credibility determinations, are reviewed under the 24 substantial evidence standard, Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 25 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009), and “are conclusive unless any 2 1 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Because this 3 application is governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the 4 agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, 5 base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s 6 demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and 7 inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether 8 they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 10 265 (B.I.A. 2007). 11 Analyzed under the REAL ID Act, the agency’s adverse 12 credibility determination is supported by substantial 13 evidence. In finding Jiang not credible, the agency 14 reasonably relied on the inconsistency between his testimony 15 and asylum application concerning his knowledge of Falun 16 Gong while in China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). As 17 the agency noted, Jiang’s testimony that he had little, if 18 any, understanding of Falun Gong while in China contradicted 19 statements in his asylum application. In his asylum 20 application, he stated that while in China, he had 21 publically lectured individuals about what Falun Gong is and 22 the truth about why the Chinese government suppresses Falun 3 1 Gong; he also stated that he had only begun to support Falun 2 Gong after he understood what Falun Gong was. Although 3 Jiang takes issue with the agency’s interpretation of his 4 asylum application as reflecting a deeper understanding of 5 Falun Gong than his subsequent testimony indicated, it is 6 not our role to determine which possible inference is the 7 most plausible. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168 8 (2d Cir. 2007) (under the substantial evidence standard, 9 “support for a contrary inference,” even if “more plausible 10 or more natural,” is not error). Where, as here, the 11 agency’s inference “is tethered to the evidentiary record, 12 we will accord deference to the finding.” Id. at 169. 13 Finally, error, if any, in the Board’s one-sentence 14 statement that the IJ had relied on the petitioner’s 15 demeanor in its adverse credibility determination is 16 harmless given the Board’s overwhelming reliance on Jiang’s 17 inconsistent statements. Jin Jin Long v. Holder, 620 F.3d 18 162, 165 n.4 (2d Cir. 2010) (applying harmless error 19 standard); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 20 315, 339 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that remand is futile when 21 this Court “can ‘confidently predict’ that the agency would 22 reach the same decision absent [any] errors that were made”) 4 1 (quoting Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 2 406 (2d Cir. 2005)). 3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, petitioner’s 5 motion for stay of removal is DENIED as moot. 6 7 FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/931043. Public record. Not legal advice.