Case ID: f-appx_604/html/0061-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JIANRU LIU, Jianhua Lin, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    
    No. 14-17.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 15, 2015.
    Khaghendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., Chhetry & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y., for Petitioners.
    Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant At- ' torney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Jeffery R. Leist, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Jianru Liu and Jianhua Lin, natives and citizens of China, seek review of a December 13, 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the April 10, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianru Liu, Jianhua Lin, Nos. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ], 098-056-008 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2013), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ], 098-056-008 (Immig.Ct.N.Y.C. Apr. 10, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). 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).

For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements and other record evidence, “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). “We defer ... to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008).

The agency reasonably relied in part on Liu’s demeanor, noting that he was at times unresponsive and hesitant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 381 (2d Cir.2007). That finding is supported by the record. The agency’s demeanor finding and the credibility determination as a whole were bolstered by inconsistencies and omissions in the record related to whether members of Liu’s church in China were beaten and whether the church building was later demolished. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n. 3. The agency was not compelled to credit his explanations for these inconsistencies and omissions. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Having questioned Liu’s credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on his failure to provide corroborating testimony or statements from members of his church in the United States. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007).

Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and corroboration findings, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. That determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT, as those claims are based on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006). 
      
      . Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was based on the same grounds as the application filed by Liu, the lead applicant. The petitioners have not challenged, and we decline to address, the IJ’s alternative finding that Lin's application independently failed on the merits. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).