Jian Liu v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIAN MING LIU, No. 10-70036
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-676-130
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: FLETCHER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District
Judge.***
Jian Ming Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Liu claims that he will suffer persecution if he is removed
to China because of his participation in the 1989 student protests against the
Chinese government in Tiananmen Square. A review of the record indicates that
the IJ did not err in denying Liu’s applications for relief, and we therefore deny his
petition for review.
Liu entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor for business and
was authorized to remain for a temporary period not to go beyond June 23, 1993.
On August 9, 1993, Liu filed an application for asylum. On February 22, 2008, the
IJ issued a decision finding Liu removable and denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. On December 17, 2009, the
BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding and dismissed Liu’s appeal. It should be noted that
even though Liu’s application for asylum was filed in 1993, his formal
2
immigration proceedings did not commence until 2007.¹ This appeal followed the
BIA’s dismissal of Liu’s claims.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Under the substantial evidence
standard, the court upholds the BIA’s determination unless the evidence in the
record compels a contrary conclusion.”). Liu’s application for asylum alleges that
he is fearful of persecution in China because of his supposed involvement in the
1989 student protests in Tiananmen Square. Further, he claimed that the Chinese
government arrested and imprisoned him because of his involvement in the
uprising. Liu also claimed that he was physically beaten and interrogated daily in
prison, and that when he was released, he was immediately taken into custody and
1
Both the IJ and the BIA directly addressed the substantial time lapse
between Liu’s original application for asylum and the initial proceedings. The BIA
stated that:
While the delay in action on the respondent’s application
is unfortunate, it does not constitute a violation of due
process nor a basis for invalidating removal proceedings.
The respondent initially filed an asylum application and
he attached supporting documents to such application.
Therefore, there is no indication that the respondent was
unaware of the need to gather and submit corroborative
evidence or supporting documentation. While the lapse
in time may sufficiently explain some lack of detail, it
does not sufficiently explain all of the discrepancies
enumerated in the Immigration Judge’s decision.
3
sentenced to one year in a labor reform camp. Liu alleged that once he was
released from the labor camp, he and his family were subject to constant
government surveillance, which prompted his decision to flee from China to the
United States.
The IJ determined that Liu’s testimony was both “inconsistent and evasive”
and that Liu was “not entirely forthcoming.” The IJ provided specific and
overwhelming examples about why Liu was not credible, noting inconsistencies in
both Liu’s testimony and his handwritten declaration attached to his asylum
application. For instance, Liu claimed that he was part of the student
demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. However, when questioned, Liu was unable
to correctly identify any leaders of the student movement, any of the individuals
imprisoned alongside Liu, nor the stated goals underlying the Tiananmen Square
protests. Liu contradicted himself throughout the proceedings before the IJ and
constantly changed the details of his involvement in the protests, his imprisonment,
and the circumstances of his internment at the Chinese labor camp. It is well-
settled in this court that “[m]ajor inconsistencies on issues material to the
[petitioner’s] claim of persecution constitute substantial evidence supporting an
adverse credibility determination.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.
2011) (citing Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005)). Such is the
4
case here. We agree with the BIA that the inherent inconsistencies in Liu’s asylum
application and his subsequent testimony are not solely attributable to the time
lapse between Liu’s original application for asylum and the initial hearing before
the IJ. Liu’s inherent contradictions in his narrative go to the heart of his asylum
claim and no doubt support an adverse credibility determination. See Kaur, 418
F.3d at 1067. Liu had multiple opportunities to explain these inconsistencies, but
he failed to do so. Therefore, we deny Liu’s petition for review on his asylum
claim.
Furthermore, denials of Liu’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT
relief are also supported by substantial evidence. Kasnecovic v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 812, 813 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, we deny Liu’s petition for review.
DENIED.
²
Liu also argues that the IJ was biased against him. Liu does not identify
anything in the record to support that argument, and our review of the record
confirms that Liu's argument is without merit.
5