Case ID: f-appx_523/html/0840-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XIE QIAN LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 7, 2013.
    
      Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant, Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Xie Qian Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 17, 2012, order of the BIA, affirming the April 14, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn, which denied his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xie Qian Liu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 17, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City April 14, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed the both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

The agency did not err in concluding that Liu failed to establish a likelihood that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 168-71 (2d Cir.2004). Liu alleged that he feared that smugglers who had helped him illegally depart China would torture him, and that the Chinese government would torture him for having departed China illegally. As the agency found, however, Liu’s admission that neither he nor his family had ever been threatened by the smugglers to whom he allegedly owed money, as well as Liu’s failure to provide any particularized evidence to corroborate that he still owed an outstanding debt to the smugglers, undermined his claim that he would more likely than not be tortured by the smugglers upon his return to China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i) (“In assessing whether it is more likely than not that an applicant would be tortured ... all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be considered, including, but not limited to ... [e]vidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant.”).

Furthermore, the agency reasonably found that the 2007 U.S. Department of State Profile of Asylum Claims did little to reinforce Liu’s claimed fear of future torture, as it indicated that the Chinese government rarely imposes excessive fines or physically abuses individuals who have departed the country illegally. Moreover, as the IJ found, the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board report did not establish that the Chinese government would acquiesce in any actions by the smugglers against Liu for failing to pay the alleged debt, as the report indicated that Chinese authorities prosecute smugglers and officials who are found to have collaborated with smugglers. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (requiring torture cognizable under CAT to be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”); see also Khouzam, 361 F.3d at 170-71. Finally, contrary to Liu’s argument, a reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled to conclude that the agency ignored any material evidence that he submitted. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that this Court will “presume” that the agency “has taken into account all of the evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise”); Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (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 34.1(b).