Xun Hua Liang v. Sessions ( 2017 )

16-3247
Liang v. Sessions
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A206 288 210
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 11th day of December, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 XUN HUA LIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-3247
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, Law Office of Michael
24 Brown, New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Janette L. Allen,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Neelam
29 Ihsanullah, Trial Attorney, Office
30 of Immigration Litigation, United
1 States Department of Justice,
2 Washington, DC.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
7 DENIED.
8 Petitioner Xun Hua Liang, a native and citizen of the
9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 25, 2016
10 decision of the BIA affirming a June 15, 2015 decision of an
11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liang’s application for
12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xun Hua Liang, No. A206 288 210
14 (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2016), aff’g No. A206 288 210 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C.
15 June 15, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
17 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the
18 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
20 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
21 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
22 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
23 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
24 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
2
1 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s
2 . . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency
3 of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements
4 with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether
5 an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart
6 of the applicant’s claim. . . .” 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
8 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
9 Liang was not credible as to his claim that Chinese officials
10 detained and harmed him on account of his Catholicism.
11 The agency reasonably relied on record inconsistencies
12 regarding where on his body police shocked Liang with an
13 electric baton, whether he was forced to write and fingerprint
14 a letter guaranteeing he would stop his religious practice, and
15 what abuse he suffered when reporting to police. See 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67
17 & n.3. Liang did not provide compelling explanations for these
18 inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d
19 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible
20 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief;
21 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be
3
1 compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks
2 omitted)).
3 Having questioned Liang’s credibility, the agency
4 reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his
5 credibility with reliable corroborating evidence. “An
6 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear
7 on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general
8 makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has
9 already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496
10 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency did not err in
11 affording limited weight to letters provided by Liang’s mother
12 and friend because the letters were unsworn, the authors were
13 not available for cross-examination, and the friend’s letter
14 was inconsistent with Liang’s testimony in some respects. See
15 Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). And although
16 the parties stipulated that Liang’s daughter would testify
17 consistently with her affidavit, in which she averred that Liang
18 had been detained, interrogated, and mistreated in China, the
19 affidavit did not rehabilitate Liang’s credibility as it did
20 not discuss many of the specific facts underlying the IJ’s
21 inconsistency findings and was not based on first-hand
22 knowledge.
4
1 Given its findings regarding record inconsistencies and
2 lack of corroborating evidence, we conclude that the agency’s
3 adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
4 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
5 F.3d at 167. That determination is dispositive of Liang’s
6 claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
7 because all three claims are based on the same factual
8 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
9 2006).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
13 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
14 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
15 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
17 34.1(b).
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5