ZHIYONG WANG v. SESSIONS III (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Zhiyong Wang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of an August 18, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a May 7, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhiyong Wang, No. A XXX XX9 579 (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2016), aff'g No. A XXX XX9 579 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed the IJ's decision as supplemented by the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

In making an adverse credibility determination, the agency may rely on inconsistencies and omissions in an asylum applicant's statements and other record evidence; however, the “totality of the circumstances” must support the determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. The IJ here based its adverse credibility determination on two omissions by Wang, one involving whether police officers “beat up” or “pushed” his mother, and another regarding whether the police summoned Wang for questioning after his two arrests. App. 3. These two omissions, however, are insufficient to establish an adverse credibility determination under the totality of the circumstances. Wang has submitted letters from his neighbor in China stating that he “was aware of [Wang's] two arrests for practicing [Buddhism]” and that the police are continuing to “question[ ] for information about him,” id. at 82, a letter from his father stating that after Wang left China “the police never gave up looking for him,” id. at 84, and a letter from his cousin stating that Wang had been arrested twice in China for practicing Buddhism and that police “are still seeking his person,” id. at 86. The letters strongly support Wang's claims, and there is no evidence in the record that the letters are false, fraudulent, or otherwise should not be believed.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA's decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.