Wei v. Sessions

16-3102 Wei v. Sessions BIA Loprest, IJ A205 235 591 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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of February, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ YANJUN WEI, Petitioner, v. 16-3102 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Russell J. E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; John D. Williams, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Yanjun Wei, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 29, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming an October 5, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wei’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the adverse credibility determination as modified by the BIA. See Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 2 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” “the plausibility of the . . . account,” and inconsistencies in her statements and other evidence, “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); Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Wei was not credible. Wei’s testimony is inconsistent as to whether her mother was aware of her Falun Gong practice. Compare App. 117 (“Only my husband know.”), with App. 135 (“my mother aware of it”). To the extent that she denied her mother’s knowledge, moreover, it was reasonable for the agency to find that testimony implausible given that her mother lived with ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals