Bin Liu v. Lynch , 617 F. App'x 104 ( 2015 )

14-914
Liu v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A201 107 400
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 21st day of September, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 BIN LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-914
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, Zhang & Associates,
25 P.C., New York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
28 Assistant Attorney General; Blair T.
29 O’Connor, Assistant Director; Eric
1 W. Marstellar, Senior Litigation
2 Counsel, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, United States
4 Department of Justice, Washington,
5 D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
10 DENIED.
11 Petitioner Bin Liu, a native and citizen of The People’s
12 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 14, 2014, decision
13 of the BIA affirming a March 28, 2012, decision of an Immigration
14 Judge (“IJ”) denying Liu’s application for asylum, withholding
15 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
16 (“CAT”). In re Bin Liu, No. A201 107 400 (B.I.A. Feb. 14, 2014),
17 aff’g No. A201 107 400 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 28, 2012).
18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
19 and procedural history in this case.
20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
21 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528
22 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
24 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
2
1 For asylum applications like Liu’s, governed by the REAL
2 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
3 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the
4 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or
5 witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or
6 witness’s account,” and inconsistencies in an applicant’s
7 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
8 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
9 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
10 Here, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported
11 by substantial evidence.
12 The IJ reasonably relied on material discrepancies between
13 Liu’s asylum application and testimony, including the date of
14 his arrest. Moreover, Liu testified that police burned his
15 underground church down after he was arrested, but his
16 application made no mention of this incident. These
17 inconsistencies are supported by the record. Xiu Xia Lin, 534
18 F.3d at 163-64. The IJ was not required to accept Liu’s
19 explanations. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.
20 2005).
3
1 The IJ also reasonably relied on Liu’s inconsistent
2 testimony concerning his household register. Liu submitted a
3 household register booklet showing he lived with his uncle,
4 testified that the register was accurate, but then later
5 testified that he had never seen the booklet or lived with his
6 uncle. This inconsistency is supported by the record, and the
7 IJ was entitled to rely on it. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
8 The IJ may have erred in finding Lin’s various physical
9 descriptions of his church inconsistent, but this error would
10 not require remand. Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428
11 F.3d 391, 402 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that we are not required
12 to remand if it is “clear that the same decision would have been
13 reached in the absence of the errors”). Ultimately, the IJ’s
14 adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
15 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). This finding was
16 sufficient to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
17 relief, as all three claims were based on the same factual
18 predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
19 2006) (withholding); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
20 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT).
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5