Min Tian Gao v. Gonzales

Second Circuit

Min Tian Gao v. Gonzales

139 F. App'x 339

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 2005

DocketDocket No. 03-40327

StatusPublished

This text of 139 F. App'x 339 (Min Tian Gao v. Gonzales) 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

Min Tian Gao v. Gonzales, 139 F. App'x 339 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. When reviewing asylum claims, “[w]e review the factual findings underlying the [IJ’s] determinations under the substantial evidence standard, reversing only if no reasonable fact-finder could have failed to find that petitioner suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution or torture.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 177 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted); see also Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 305 (2d Cir.2003) (noting that when the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ directly). To reverse an IJ’s factual finding, we must conclude “that the evidence not only supports [a] conclusion” favorable to the asylum applicant, “but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

[340]*340In this case, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that petitioner was not credible. Petitioner offered conflicted, confused testimony both as to the facts surrounding his wife’s IUD and those surrounding the alleged persecution of his family for membership in a political group. Accordingly, the IJ did not err in finding Gao not credible. Petitioner’s current contention regarding the IJ’s alleged confusion over two supplements is not to the contrary.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the petition for review is 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 is DENIED.

Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. When reviewing asylum claims, “[w]e review the factual findings underlying the [IJ’s] determinations under the substantial evidence standard, reversing only if no reasonable fact-finder could have failed to find that petitioner suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution or torture.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 177 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted); see also Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 305 (2d Cir.2003) (noting that when the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the IJ directly). To reverse an IJ’s factual finding, we must conclude “that the evidence not only supports [a] conclusion” favorable to the asylum applicant, “but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

[340]*340In this case, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that petitioner was not credible. Petitioner offered conflicted, confused testimony both as to the facts surrounding his wife’s IUD and those surrounding the alleged persecution of his family for membership in a political group. Accordingly, the IJ did not err in finding Gao not credible. Petitioner’s current contention regarding the IJ’s alleged confusion over two supplements is not to the contrary.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the petition for review is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. App'x 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/min-tian-gao-v-gonzales-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack