SHAO MING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 467 F. App'x 92

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Shao Ming Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the BIA’s December 28, 2010, decision affirming the August 13, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Thomas J. Mulligan denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Shao Ming Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 28, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 13, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision together with the BIA decision. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005); see also Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

We “defer ... to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

For asylum applications such as Chen’s, governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on, inter alia, an applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163, 164 & n. 2,165. Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.

In finding Chen not credible, the IJ reasonably relied in part on Chen’s demeanor, noting that she appeared to testify from a script and that she became “anxious” when confronted about inconsistencies in her testimony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(m). We defer to the IJ’s demeanor finding, especially where, as in this case, the finding is supported by specific examples of inconsistencies in Chen’s evidence. Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006).

The IJ noted (for example) that, contrary to Chen’s testimony that her mother and father were detained, the letters from her parents did not mention any such detention. Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s denial of Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.

Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 10 34.1(b). . We note our concern with the poor quality of the brief filed by Chen's counsel, Tina Howe. The brief contained a number of substantive, grammatical, and typographical errors, including: (1) quoting a Third Circuit case, Yun Jun Cao v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S., but attributing the quotation to a Second Circuit case with a similar name, Cao He Lin v. U.S.

Dep’t of Justice, see Petitioner's Brief ("PB") at 16-17; (2) copying and pasting irrelevant text into the brief relating to Falun Gong, although this case concerned a claim based only on Christianity, see id. at 17-18; (3) providing incorrect pin cites to the record and cited cases, see id. at 7, 11, 14, 16-17; and (4) listing cases in the table of contents that are not subsequently cited in the text, and vice-versa, see id. at 3, 14, 16 (citing I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias; N.L.R.B. v. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Co.; Bandari v. I.N.S.; Rizal v. Gonzales; and Li v. Mukasey).

Since Howe has already been warned about her deficient briefing, see, e.g., Mei Juan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 278 Fed.Appx. 37 (2d Cir. 2008); Su Ying Wen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 07-3915-ag, we refer the present matter to this Court's Grievance Panel.