Liu v. Garland ( 2023 )

20-1510
Liu v. Garland
BIA
Barcus, IJ
A205 421 499
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 26th day of January, two thousand twenty-
5 three.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 MYRNA PÉREZ,
10 ALISON J. NATHAN,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 CHANG-JIE LIU,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 20-1510
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, Law Offices of
25 Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, NY
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Anthony P.
1 Nicastro, Assistant Director;
2 Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney,
3 Office of Immigration Litigation,
4 United States Department of
5 Justice, Washington, DC.
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Chang-Jie Liu, a native and citizen of the
11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 13, 2020
12 decision of the BIA affirming a June 6, 2018 decision of an
13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for
14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chang-Jie Liu, No.
16 A 205 421 499 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 421 499
17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 6, 2018). We assume the parties’
18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the
20 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520,
21 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse credibility
22 determinations for substantial evidence, see Hong Fei Gao v.
23 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat the
24 agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive unless any
2
1 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
2 contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
5 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of
6 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the
7 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,
8 the consistency of such statements with other evidence of
9 record . . . , and any inaccuracies of falsehoods in such
10 statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency,
11 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s
12 claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.
13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
14 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
15 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an
16 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
17 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d
18 at 76. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
19 determination.
20 Liu alleged that the police arrested, beat, interrogated,
21 and detained him after they raided the underground Christian
3
1 church he attended. The agency reasonably concluded that
2 Liu’s testimony lacked detail. See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft,
3 329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Where an applicant gives
4 very spare testimony . . . the [agency] may fairly wonder
5 whether the testimony is fabricated.”), overruled on other
6 grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 494 F.3d 2967 (2d Cir. 2007). When questioned, Liu was unable to provide
8 details of his own conversion experience, when his friend
9 introduced him to the gospel, how his religious conversion
10 affected his life, why the photograph accompanying his
11 pastor’s letter showed him as much younger than when he
12 purportedly joined the church, and when his brother came to
13 the United States or where he lived.
14 Having questioned Liu’s credibility, the agency
15 reasonably relied on his failure to rehabilitate his
16 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. “An
17 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may
18 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in
19 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony
20 that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v.
21 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). As the agency
4
1 found, the letter from Liu’s church in China did not
2 corroborate Liu’s description of the raids on the church or
3 Liu’s arrest, and Liu’s mother’s letter did not corroborate
4 that Liu received medical treatment or that the police
5 continued to look for him five years after he left China.
6 The inconsistency, lack of detail, and lack of
7 corroboration provided substantial evidence for the adverse
8 credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The
10 adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,
11 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms
12 of relief were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul
13 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
16 stays VACATED.
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
19 Clerk of Court
5