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 PERMI** **TTED 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 17 th** **day of October, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 7 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 8 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **LIYU LIU, AKA LIYU LUI,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 13-685** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Luis E. Perez, Senior** 26 **Litigation Counsel; E. Tayo Otunla,** 27 **Trial Attorney, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, U.S.** 29 **Department of Justice, Washington** 30 **D.C.** 31UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Liyu Liu, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 6, 6 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the January 31, 2011, 7 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jesse B. Christensen, 8 denying Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Liyu Liu , No. A089 714 514 (B.I.A. Feb. 6, 11 2013), aff’gNo. A089 714 514 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 31, 12 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both 15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 16 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 17 2008). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia 19 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For 20 asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency 21 may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a 22

2credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the 1 plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her 2 statements and other record evidence without regard to 3 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 4 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163- 5 64. Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 6 determination that Liu was not credible. 7 First, as to her Falun Gong claim, the agency 8 reasonably relied on Liu’s demeanor, noting that she was 9 evasive when responding to basic questions about her 10 distribution of Falun Gong fliers and whether she would 11 practice Falun Gong if removed to China. See8 U.S.C. 12 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 13 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). Those findings are supported by 14 the hearing transcript. In addition, the agency reasonably 15 noted inconsistencies in her testimony and corroborating 16 evidence regarding police visits to her house following her 17 involvement with Falun Gong. See 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166 19 n.3. In light of her demeanor and inconsistent evidence in 20 this regard, the agency reasonably questioned the 21 plausibility of her testimony that she knowingly risked 22

3persecution to distribute Falun Gong fliers even though she 1 was not herself a practitioner at the time. See Ying Li v. 2
BCIS, 529 F.3d 79, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 In finding her not credible as to her family planning 4 claim, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that Liu 5 failed to state at her credible fear interview that she had 6 been forcibly sterilized in China. See 8 U.S.C. 7 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166- 8
67 & n.3; Dong v. Ashcroft , 406 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 9 2005). As the agency found, the record of Liu’s credible 10 fear interview was sufficiently reliable because it included 11 a typed verbatim transcript of the questions asked and 12 answered with the assistance of a translator, indicated that 13 the interviewer explained the reasons for the interview, and 14 posed questions designed to elicit information regarding a 15 potential asylum claim. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 16 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency was not compelled to 17 credit Liu’s explanation for the omission. See Majidi,430 18 F.3d at 80. 19 Based on these findings, the agency reasonably found 20 Liu not credible, and denied her asylum, withholding of 21 removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165- 22
66; see also Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 23 2006). 24
4For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1
DENIED. 2
FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 4 5 6 7

5