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.**
**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thu rgood Marshall**  2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 2**  **6 t**  **h day of**  **J a**  **n u**  **a r**  **y , two thousand twenty** 

**** 4 **t h**  **r e**  **e**
**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 8 **MYRNA PÉREZ,** 9 **ALISON J. NATHAN,** 10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **CH ANG** 

**- JIE LIU,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16

**v. 20** 

**- 1510**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER:** Adedayo O. Idowu, Law Offices of 24 Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, NY 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General ; Anthony P. 282 Nicastro , Assistant Director; 1 Ilana J. Snyder , Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5

UPON DUE CO NSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8

is DENIED. 9

Petitioner Chang

- Jie Liu , a native and citizen of the 10
People’s Republic of Chin a, seeks review of an April 13, 2020 11

decision of the BIA affirming a June 6, 2018 decision of an 12
Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for 13
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 14
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chan g - Jie Liu , No. 15

A 205 421 499 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 421 499 16
(Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 6, 2018). We assume the parties’ 17
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18
We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 19

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

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

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

Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat the 23
agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive unless any 243 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 1
contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 2
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 3
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 4
determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 5
the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between th e 6
applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 7
the consistency of such statements with other evidence of 8
record . . . , and any inaccuracies of falsehoods in such 9
statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, 10
inaccuracy, or falseh ood goes to the heart of the applicant’s 11
claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. 12

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 13
determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 14
it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder could make such an 15
adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 16

F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d 17
at 76. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility 18

determination. 19
Liu alleged that the police arrested, beat , interrogated, 20
and detained him after they raided the underground Christian 214 church he attended. The agency reasonably concluded that 1
Liu’s testimony lacked detail. See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft , 2
329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Where an applicant gives 3
very spare testimony . . . the [agency] may fairly wonder 4
whether the testimony is fabricated.”), overruled on other 5
grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just. , 494 F.3d 296 6
(2d Cir. 2007). When questioned, Liu was unable to provide 7

details of his o wn conversion experience, when his friend 8
introduced him to the gospel, how his religious conversion 9
affected his life, why the photograph accompanying his 10
pastor’s letter showed him as much younger than when he 11
purportedly joined the church, and when his brother came to 12

the United States or where he lived. 13
Having questioned Liu’s credibility, the agency 14
reasonably relied on his failure to rehabilitate his 15
testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. “ An 16
applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may 17
bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in 18
general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony 19
that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. 20

Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). As the agency 215 fo und, the letter from Liu’s church in China did not 1
corroborate Liu’s description of the raids on the church or 2

Liu’s arrest, and Liu’s mother’s letter did not corroborate 3
that Liu received medical treatment or that the police 4

continued to look for him five years after he left China

. 5
The inconsistency, lack of detail, and lack of 6
corroboration provided s ubstantial evidence for the adverse 7
credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 8

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

adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 10
withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms 11
of relief were based on the same factual predicate. S ee Paul 12

v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 13
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 14

DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 15

stays VACATED. 16

FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 18 Clerk of Court 19