13-685

Liu v. Holder

BIA

Christensen, IJ

A089 714 514

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 United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 17th 4 day of October, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 RALPH K. WINTER,

8 GUIDO CALABRESI,

9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 LIYU LIU, AKA LIYU LUI,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 13-685

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 ______________________________________ 22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Luis E. Perez, Senior

27 Litigation Counsel; E. Tayo Otunla,

28 Trial Attorney, Office of

29 Immigration Litigation, U.S.

30 Department of Justice, Washington

31 D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Liyu Liu, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 6,

7 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the January 31, 2011,

8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jesse B. Christensen,

9 denying Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of

10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

11 (“CAT”). In re Liyu Liu, No. A089 714 514 (B.I.A. Feb. 6,

12 2013), aff’g No. A089 714 514 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 31,

13 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both

16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of

17 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.

18 2008). The applicable standards of review are well

19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia

20 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For

21 asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency

22 may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a

2
1 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the

2 plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her

3 statements and other record evidence without regard to

4 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 

5 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-

6 64. Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

7 determination that Liu was not credible. 

8 First, as to her Falun Gong claim, the agency

9 reasonably relied on Liu’s demeanor, noting that she was

10 evasive when responding to basic questions about her

11 distribution of Falun Gong fliers and whether she would

12 practice Falun Gong if removed to China. See 8 U.S.C.

13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d

14 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). Those findings are supported by

15 the hearing transcript. In addition, the agency reasonably

16 noted inconsistencies in her testimony and corroborating

17 evidence regarding police visits to her house following her

18 involvement with Falun Gong. See 8 U.S.C.

19 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166

20 n.3. In light of her demeanor and inconsistent evidence in

21 this regard, the agency reasonably questioned the

22 plausibility of her testimony that she knowingly risked

3
1 persecution to distribute Falun Gong fliers even though she

2 was not herself a practitioner at the time. See Ying Li v.

3 BCIS, 529 F.3d 79, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2008). 

4 In finding her not credible as to her family planning

5 claim, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that Liu

6 failed to state at her credible fear interview that she had

7 been forcibly sterilized in China. See 8 U.S.C.

8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-

9 67 & n.3; Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.

10 2005). As the agency found, the record of Liu’s credible

11 fear interview was sufficiently reliable because it included

12 a typed verbatim transcript of the questions asked and

13 answered with the assistance of a translator, indicated that

14 the interviewer explained the reasons for the interview, and

15 posed questions designed to elicit information regarding a

16 potential asylum claim. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d

17 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency was not compelled to

18 credit Liu’s explanation for the omission. See Majidi, 430

19 F.3d at 80. 

20 Based on these findings, the agency reasonably found

21 Liu not credible, and denied her asylum, withholding of

22 removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-

23 66; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.

24 2006). 

4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED. 

3 FOR THE COURT: 

4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

5

6

7

5