20-1510

Liu v. Garland

BIA

Barcus, IJ

A205 421 499

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 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 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 26th 4 day of January, two thousand twenty5 three.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

9 MYRNA PÉREZ,

10 ALISON J. NATHAN,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 CHANG-JIE LIU,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 20-1510

18 NAC

19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, Law Offices of 

25 Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, NY

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 

28 Attorney General; Anthony P. 
2

1 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 

2 Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney, 

3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

4 United States Department of 

5 Justice, Washington, DC.

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Chang-Jie Liu, a native and citizen of the 

11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 13, 2020 

12 decision of the BIA affirming a June 6, 2018 decision of an 

13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for 

14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chang-Jie Liu, No. 

16 A 205 421 499 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 421 499

17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 6, 2018). We assume the parties’ 

18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 

19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 

20 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 

21 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse credibility 

22 determinations for substantial evidence, see Hong Fei Gao v. 

23 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat the 

24 agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive unless any 
3

1 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 

2 contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 

4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 

5 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 

6 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the 

7 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 

8 the consistency of such statements with other evidence of 

9 record . . . , and any inaccuracies of falsehoods in such 

10 statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, 

11 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s 

12 claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. 

13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 

14 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 

15 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an 

16 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 

17 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d 

18 at 76. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility 

19 determination.

20 Liu alleged that the police arrested, beat, interrogated, 

21 and detained him after they raided the underground Christian 
4

1 church he attended. The agency reasonably concluded that 

2 Liu’s testimony lacked detail. See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 

3 329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Where an applicant gives

4 very spare testimony . . . the [agency] may fairly wonder 

5 whether the testimony is fabricated.”), overruled on other 

6 grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 494 F.3d 296 

7 (2d Cir. 2007). When questioned, Liu was unable to provide 

8 details of his own conversion experience, when his friend 

9 introduced him to the gospel, how his religious conversion 

10 affected his life, why the photograph accompanying his 

11 pastor’s letter showed him as much younger than when he 

12 purportedly joined the church, and when his brother came to 

13 the United States or where he lived. 

14 Having questioned Liu’s credibility, the agency 

15 reasonably relied on his failure to rehabilitate his 

16 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. “An 

17 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may 

18 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in 

19 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony 

20 that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. 

21 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). As the agency 
5

1 found, the letter from Liu’s church in China did not 

2 corroborate Liu’s description of the raids on the church or 

3 Liu’s arrest, and Liu’s mother’s letter did not corroborate 

4 that Liu received medical treatment or that the police 

5 continued to look for him five years after he left China. 

6 The inconsistency, lack of detail, and lack of 

7 corroboration provided substantial evidence for the adverse 

8 credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 

9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The 

10 adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 

11 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms 

12 of relief were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul 

13 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

15 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

16 stays VACATED.

17 FOR THE COURT: 

18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

19 Clerk of Court