ZHENG v. BARR (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Xingchi Zheng, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a July 25, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a September 7, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xingchi Zheng, No. A206 560 263 (B.I.A. July 25, 2018), aff'g No. A206 560 263 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 7, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ's and the BIA's opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). 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 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 Zheng was not credible as to his claim that he suffered a head injury in a scuffle with a family planning official and was detained and beaten by police for attempting to stop officials from taking his wife to have an abortion.

The agency reasonably relied in part on Zheng's demeanor, noting that he was vague and unresponsive when confronted with certain inconsistencies in his evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006) (“We can be still more confident in our review of observations about an applicant's demeanor where ․ they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent testimony.”). The agency also reasonably relied on Zheng's inconsistent evidence regarding when his wife's abortion certificate was issued in relation to his detention and payment of a family planning fine and regarding when he saw his brother after arriving in the United States. Nor did the agency err in relying on the omission of Zheng's head injury from his family's corroborating letters. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (upholding adverse credibility determination where IJ relied on omissions by third parties). Zheng did not compellingly explain these record inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).

Having questioned Zheng's credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. “An applicant's failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency reasonably declined to credit the letters from Zheng's family members because, as discussed above, they failed to mention Zheng's head injury, and further, the authors were interested witnesses who were not available for cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer to the agency's evaluation of the weight to be afforded an applicant's documentary evidence.”); see also In re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A. 2010) (finding that letters from alien's friends and family were insufficient to provide substantial support for alien's claims because they were from interested witnesses not subject to cross-examination), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 133–38 (2d Cir. 2012).

Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and corroboration findings, the agency's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief were based on the same factual predicate. 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.