14-4099 Liu v. Lynch BIA Nelson, IJ A087 652 071 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **19 th**  **day of April, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **HUAGUI LIU,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 14-4099** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 25 Assistant Attorney General, Civil 26 Division; Douglas E. Ginsburg, 27 Assistant Director; Deitz P. Lefort, 28 Trial Attorney, Office of 292 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, D.C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 7

DENIED. 8 Petitioner Huagui Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks 9 review of an October 10, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming 10 a July 10, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 11 Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 12 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 13 Huagui Liu, No. A087 652 071 (B.I.A. Oct. 10, 2014), aff’g No. 14 A087 652 071 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jul. 10, 2013). We assume 15 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered 18 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 19 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 20 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 223 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 1 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 As the Government correctly argues, Liu has waived any 3 challenges to the agency’s credibility finding or well-founded 4

fear determination. Liu’s brief contains a heading that refers 5 to his credibility, but what follows lacks any argument about 6 this case. This is insufficient to challenge the credibility 7 determination. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 8 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Liu has preserved only a challenge to 9 the agency’s corroboration finding. 10 Given the IJ’s advers e credibility determination, the 11 agency properly considered Liu’s lack of corroborating 12 evidence. An applicant’s failure to corroborate testimony may 13 bear on credibility, either because the absence of particular 14 corroborating evidence is suspicious, or because the absence 15 of corroboration makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate 16 testimony that has already been called into question. See Biao 17 Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 18 A letter from Liu’s wife was entitled to minimal weight 19 because it was prepared for purposes of litigation, it was not 20 notarized, and the author was an interested party. Y.C. v. 214 Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013); In re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z- , 1 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010), rev’d on other grounds by 2 Hui Lin Huang v. Holder , 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). 3 The IJ reasonably gave diminished weight to a detention 4 certificate because, unlike other documents, Liu failed to 5 authenticate it by any means. Although the agency may err in 6 rejecting a government document based solely on a failure to 7 satisfy the authentication regulations, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. 8 Dep’t of Justice , 428 F.3d 391, 404-05 (2d Cir. 2005), it does 9 not err where, as here, it discounts documentary evidence for 10 failure to authenticate by any means and there are “legitimate 11 concerns” about the applicant’s credibility, Qin Wen Zheng v. 12

Gonzales , 500 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2007). 13 The agency also reasonably considered Liu’s failure to 14 provide any documentation from his Chinese church, the hospital 15 that treated him for his stomach ailment, or the police. Xiao 16 Ji Chen , 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d C ir. 2006). The IJ’s 17 corroboration finding was supported by substantial evidence. 18

Yan Juan Chen v. Holder , 658 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 2011). 19 Liu has waived any challenge to the IJ’s adverse 20 credibility determination and failed to meet his burden with 215 corroborating evidence, and so the agency did not err in denying 1 asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). As all of Liu’s claims 2 share the same factual predicate, the burden finding is 3 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 4 Lecaj v. Holder , 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010). 5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 6 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 7 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 8 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 9 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 10 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 11 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 12 34.1(b). 13

FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15