Case Information
*1 12-1465 Zheng v. Holder
BIA Cheng, IJ A095 764 339 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 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 24 th day of July, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges .
_____________________________________
QIUYUN ZHENG,
Petitioner , v. 12-1465 NAC ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent .
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Century City, CA.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Francis Fraser, Assistant Director; Kate D. Balaban, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 GRANTED and the matter is remanded for further consideration.
Qiuyun Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 15, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the May 11, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mary M. Cheng, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiuyun Zheng , No. A095 764 339 (B.I.A. Mar. 15, 2012), aff’g No. A095 764 339 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 11, 2010). 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 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.
See Yan
Chen v. Gonzales
,
For applications such as Zheng’s, governed by the
amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by
the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the
*3
totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on
the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the
plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his
statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart
of the . . . claim.”
See
8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii),
1231(b)(3)(C);
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
Although the IJ based her credibility finding on some portions of Zheng’s testimony that were inconsistent and some inconsistencies between his testimony and the documentary evidence, she also relied on two related inconsistencies in his testimony that are trivial. First, she noted that at the hearing on May 11, 2010, Zheng testified on direct examination that his fiancée’s abortion occurred on October 18, 2008, and on cross-examination that it occurred on October 19, 2008. Second, the IJ noted that Zheng testified on direct examination that his fiancée came home from the hospital on October 20, and on cross- examination that she came home on October 18. When *4 confronted with these inconsistencies, he testified that the October 18 date for both events was correct.
These one- and two-day inconsistencies, which Zheng
promptly corrected, in testimony given more than a year and
one half after the events, are too trivial to lend support
to a finding that Zheng lacked credibility.
See Xiu Xia Lin
,
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, and the matter is remanded for reconsideration before a different IJ.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk