Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 07-4666-ag Liu v.Holder BIA Holmes-Simmons,IJ A096 336 584 

### UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RU LI NG S BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON ORA FT ERJANUARY1 , 20 07 , IS P ERMI TT ED AND I S GOVE RN ED B Y FE DE RAL RU LE 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 Daniel Patrick Moyn ih an 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New 4 York, on the 20 day of April, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

_______________________________________ 12 13 FENG YING LIU, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 07-4666-ag 17 NAC 18 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 1 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondents . 22

_______________________________________ 232 1 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon, New York, New York. 2 FOR RESPONDENTS: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant 3 Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, 4 Assistant Director, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, D.C. 8 9 UPON D UE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 0 Board of Immigration App eals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 2 is DENIED. 1 3 Feng Ying Liu, a native and citize n of the People’s Republic of China, 1 4 seeks review of a September 25, 2007, order of the BIA denying her motion to remand 1 5 and affirming the 1 6 September 26, 2005, d ecision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 1 7 Theresa Holmes-Simmons, which denie d her application for 1 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and r el ief under the 1 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Feng Ying Liu , No. A096 336 584 (B.I.A. Sept. 25, 2007), aff’g No. A096 336 584 20 2 1 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 26, 2005). We assume the parties’ 2 2 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 2 3 in this case. 2 4 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 2 5 decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA’s decision. 26 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 2 7 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3 d 26 8, 271 (2d3 1 Cir. 2005 ). The applicable standards of review are well2 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 4 I. Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Relief 5 We conclude that the agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. 6 See Xian 7 Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Security , 446 F.3d 289, 294 (2d Cir. 2006) 8 . As the IJ found, although Liu stated at one point 9 that s he w as k ic ke d byp ol ic e, s he f ai le d to m ak e an y such 1 0 assertion in her asylum applic at ion or upon direct 1 1 examination. Additionally, the BIA reasonably found 1 2 inconsistent Liu’s testimony regarding whether her cousin was 1 3 still detained. Th e IJ also reasonably found implausible 1 4 Liu’s testimony that her cousin would have t ol d th e police 1 5 that he had given his Falun Gong books to her for safekeeping. See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir. 2007) 16 ; Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007). 17 1 8 Finally, given Liu’s already questionable t estimony, the IJ 1 9 did not err in declining to accord weight to a letter 2 0 purportedly from Liu’s father, or in finding that her failure 2 1 to provide corroboration further undermined her credibility. 22 See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 3414

(2d Cir. 2006). 1 Such were adequate bases for finding Liu not credible. See Xian Tuan Ye , 446 F.3d at 294. 2 To the extent 3 that Liu offered expla na tions for the discrepancies the IJ 4 identified, moreover, the IJ was not compelled to credit them. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) . 5 6 We do find error in one respect. We cannot agree with 7 the IJ’s finding that it was implausible that Liu would not 8 know whether a warrant had been issued for her arrest. This 9 implausibility finding was not based on common sense and 1 0 ordinary experience, Siewe , 480 F.3d at 168-69, but required 1 1 a knowledge of Chinese government practice that the IJ could 1 2 not claim to h av e, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 1 3 428 F.3d 391, 405 (2d Cir. 2005). In that respect we are left 1 4 with a “firm conviction of error.” See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d at 67. 1 5 Despite this erroneous finding, 1 6 however, we conclude that remand would be futile, as 1 7 substantial evidence supports the r em ai nder of the IJ’s 1 8 findings which, together, provide an ample basis for the 1 9 adverse credibility determination. See Xiao Ji Chen , 471 F.3d 2 0 at 339 (deeming remand futile where the remanding co ur t can 2 1 “confidently pre di ct” that the IJ would reach the same 2 2 decision absent the errors that were made). Thus, the agency5 1 properly denied Liu’s asylum and withholding o f removal claims. 2 3 II. Motion to Remand 4 We further find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion 5 in denying Liu’s motion to rem an d, because she failed to 6 demonstrate her prima facie eligibility for relief. See Li 7 Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 8 2005) ; Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. D ec . 464, 471-72 (BIA 9 19 92). The BIA reasonably determined that Liu’s claim that 1 0 she feared being forcibly inserted with an IUD, without more, 1 1 failed to establish her eligibility. See Xia Fan Huang v. 12 Holder , 591 F.3d 124, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2010) (according Chevron 1 3 deference to the BIA’s determination in Matter of M-F-W & L-G , 24 I. & N. Dec. 633 (BIA 2008) 1 4 ). Additionally, the BIA 1 5 rea so na bl y de te rm in edt ha t Li u’ s ar gu me nt t ha t she 1 6 demonstrated her prima facie eligibility based on the birth of 1 7 her U.S. citizen daughter is foreclosed by this Court’s 1 8 decision in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 13 8 (2 d Cir. 2008) 1 9 . F in al ly, the BIA reasonably found impermissibly 2 0 speculative Liu’s claim that sh e had a well-founded fear of 2 1 persecution based on her intention to have a sec on d child. 22 See Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 42 1 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2 3 200 5) (holding that, absent solid support in the record for6 1 the petitioner’s assertion that he would be subjected to forced sterilization, his fear was “speculative at best”). 2 For the for eg oi ng reasons, the petition for review is 3 4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 5 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 6 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 7 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 8 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 9 Appellate Proced ur e 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 1 0 34.1(b). 1 1 FOR THE COURT: 1 2 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 13 14