12-646 Liu v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A089 253 917 

### 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 22 nd** **day of July, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 7 **DENNY CHIN,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**______________________________________** 11 12 **JING XI LIU, AKA WANSONG JIN,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **12-646** 16 **v. NAC** 17 18 19 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 20 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent**.** 22

**______________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER: Matthew J. Harris, Long Island City,** 25 **New York**

. 26 27 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 28 **Attorney General; Greg D. Mack,** 29 **Senior Litigation Counsel; Manuel A.** 30 **Palau, Trial Attorney, Office of** 31 **Immigration Litigation, Civil** 32 **Division, United States Department** 33 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 34UPON 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, Jing Xi Liu, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 27, 6 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the October 8, 2009, 7 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, which 8 denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, 9 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 10 re Jing Xi Liu , No. A089 253 917 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2012), 11 aff’gNo. A089 253 917 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 8, 2009). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history of the case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 16 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 19 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because Liu does not challenge the 20 agency’s denial of CAT relief, we have reviewed only the 21 denial of asylum and withholding of removal. 22 23 2Liu argues that the agency erred by finding that he 1 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future 2 persecution based on his aid of undocumented Korean 3 immigrants in China. Although “credible testimony alone may 4 be enough to carry the alien’s burden of proof,” an IJ may 5 “require that credible testimony of the alien be 6 corroborated in circumstances in which one would expect 7 corroborating evidence to be available and presented in the 8 immigration hearing.” Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 9 196-97 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and 10 alteration omitted); see also8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). 11 Here, the IJ did not err in finding that Liu failed to 12 provide reasonably available corroborating evidence from his 13 cousin. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). The IJ 14 reasonably expected a letter from Liu’s cousin because, 15 according to Liu’s testimony, she was the only individual 16 with personal knowledge regarding continued efforts by the 17 Chinese police to arrest him. Although Liu testified that 18 his cousin mailed two letters but that he received neither, 19 the IJ reasonably found that a letter was reasonably 20 available because Liu could have requested that his cousin 21 send the letter via facsimile or email or attempted to 22 obtain the letter more than twice in the two years since he 23
3filed his application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). Further1 more, the IJ reasonably afforded minimal weight to the 2 medical record Liu submitted, because it did not provide a 3 medical history or otherwise link the injuries found with 4 the harm to which Liu testified. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. 5 Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006)

. 6 Accordingly, the IJ did not err in finding that Liu had 7 failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. See 8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Chuilu Liu , 575 F.3d at 196-97. 9 Because this finding is dispositive of Liu’s asylum 10 application, we do not reach Liu’s arguments regarding the 11 denial of asylum as a matter of discretion. Moreover, 12 because Liu was unable to show the objective likelihood of 13 persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was 14 necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to 15 succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. Yan Juan 16 Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 254 (2d Cir. 2011). 17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 21 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 22 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 23 4Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 1 34.1(b). 2
FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 4

5