JIANQING CHEN v. SESSIONS III (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jianqing Chen, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of an August 15, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming an April 10, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianqing Chen, No. A XXX XX0 255 (B.I.A. Aug. 15, 2016), aff'g No. A XXX XX0 255 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 10, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed both the IJ's and BIA's decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).

The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse credibility ruling on the “consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements[,] ․ the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record[,] ․ and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer ․ to an IJ's credibility determination unless ․ it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination in this case.

First, the agency reasonably relied on an inconsistency between Chen's testimony that the Chinese church he attended had no priest or reverend and a letter he submitted from a reverend at Catholic (China) Fuzhou General District Taijang Cangshan Church, which stated that Chen and several of his family members were devoted Catholics or “expected” (non-baptized) Catholics. A.R. 330. Chen testified that he did not know who this reverend was and that it might be someone his mother knew. He argues that his testimony was not inconsistent either because he never testified that he attended the church identified in the letter, or because the reverend did not state that he administered all of the church's services. But these explanations do not account for the reverend's alleged personal knowledge of Chen's devotion to Catholicism. “A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Accordingly, the agency reasonably concluded that this inconsistency undermines the basis of Chen's past persecution claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] single false document or a single instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien's uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”).

Omissions regarding Chen's time in hiding and his medical treatment bolster the adverse credibility ruling. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (“An inconsistency and an omission are ․ functionally equivalent” for credibility purposes.). Chen testified that he went to a private doctor when he was released from detention and was diagnosed with severe internal injuries, after which he went into hiding for over four months before leaving China. However, Chen's application and his father's letter omitted this information. The agency was not required to accept Chen's explanation for the omissions because Chen included less material details in his asylum application and gave no reason for his father's omission. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. These omissions are not, as Chen argues, insignificant. The omissions relate to the severity of harm and his fear of re-arrest and motivation for leaving China. Moreover, the agency may rely on “any inconsistency or omission” regardless of its materiality, as long as the “totality of the circumstances” supports the determination that an applicant is not credible. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

Given these inconsistencies and omissions, which called into question Chen's testimony and undermined the reliability of his corroborating evidence, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility ruling. See id. Because Chen's asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims were all based on the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility ruling is dispositive of all relief. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.