ZHIQIANG REN v. BARR (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Zhiqiang Ren, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 13, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a June 29, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhiqiang Ren, No. A206 302 668 (B.I.A. Feb. 13, 2018), aff’g No. A206 302 668 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements ․, [and] the internal consistency of each such statement ․ without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim․” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163–64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ren was not credible as to his claim that family planning officials and police harmed him for helping his wife escape officials’ efforts to terminate her pregnancy under China’s family planning policy.

The agency reasonably questioned the plausibility of Ren’s testimony that he and his wife were able to escape from seven or eight family planning officials when his wife was nine months pregnant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 66-68 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing that adverse credibility determination may be based on inherent implausibility in applicant’s story if the “finding is tethered to record evidence” or based on common sense). When given an opportunity to explain how their escape was possible, Ren became evasive and unresponsive, which the agency reasonably found further impugned his credibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (recognizing that particular deference is given to the trier of fact’s assessment of demeanor). And, when pressed for specific details about the escape, Ren testified inconsistently regarding whether family planning officials called police immediately, whether he and his wife escaped in a car or electric bike, and whether he knew if family planning officials attempted to chase after them or not. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi, 430 F.3d at 81 n.1.

Given the implausibility, demeanor, and inconsistency findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.