Jin Chai Zhu v. United States Attorney General

Second Circuit

Jin Chai Zhu v. United States Attorney General

153 F. App'x 785

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 2005

DocketNo. 03-41212 NAC

StatusPublished

This text of 153 F. App'x 785 (Jin Chai Zhu v. United States Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jin Chai Zhu v. United States Attorney General, 153 F. App'x 785 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review be DENIED.

Jin Chai Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions this Court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Ap[786]*786peals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Zhu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review factual findings of the BIA and IJ under the substantial evidence standard, and, as such, “a finding will stand if it is supported by ‘reasonable, substantial, and probative’ evidence in the record when considered as a whole.” Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000)). Here the IJ found Zhu’s testimony incredible based on her receipt of official state documents while in hiding and the incongruity between her testimony and the letter submitted by her husband. Because the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was based on specific examples of inherently improbable testimony and “contradictory evidence,” we affirm the BIA’s decision upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 111 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam).

As Zhu has not satisfied the standard for granting asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for granting withholding of removal. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004). Further, as Zhu has not demonstrated that she would be tortured if returned to China, her claims under the CAT fail as well. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a); see also Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130,133 (2d Cir.2003).

The petition for review is therefore DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review be DENIED.

Jin Chai Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions this Court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Ap[786]*786peals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Zhu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review factual findings of the BIA and IJ under the substantial evidence standard, and, as such, “a finding will stand if it is supported by ‘reasonable, substantial, and probative’ evidence in the record when considered as a whole.” Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000)). Here the IJ found Zhu’s testimony incredible based on her receipt of official state documents while in hiding and the incongruity between her testimony and the letter submitted by her husband. Because the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was based on specific examples of inherently improbable testimony and “contradictory evidence,” we affirm the BIA’s decision upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 111 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam).

As Zhu has not satisfied the standard for granting asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for granting withholding of removal. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004). Further, as Zhu has not demonstrated that she would be tortured if returned to China, her claims under the CAT fail as well. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a); see also Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130,133 (2d Cir.2003).

The petition for review is therefore DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 F. App'x 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jin-chai-zhu-v-united-states-attorney-general-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack