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.

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 22nd 4 day of July, two thousand thirteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

8 DENNY CHIN,

9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 ______________________________________

12

13 JING XI LIU, AKA WANSONG JIN,

14 Petitioner, 15

16 12-646

17 v. NAC 

18

19

20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

22 Respondent. 23 ______________________________________ 24

25 FOR PETITIONER: Matthew J. Harris, Long Island City,

26 New York. 27

28 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant

29 Attorney General; Greg D. Mack,

30 Senior Litigation Counsel; Manuel A.

31 Palau, Trial Attorney, Office of

32 Immigration Litigation, Civil

33 Division, United States Department

34 of Justice, Washington, 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, Jing Xi Liu, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 27,

7 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the October 8, 2009,

8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, which

9 denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal,

10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In

11 re Jing Xi Liu, No. A089 253 917 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2012),

12 aff’g No. A089 253 917 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 8, 2009). 

13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

14 and procedural history of the case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

16 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan

17 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The

18 applicable standards of review are well established. See

19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d

20 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because Liu does not challenge the

21 agency’s denial of CAT relief, we have reviewed only the

22 denial of asylum and withholding of removal. 

23

2
1 Liu argues that the agency erred by finding that he

2 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future

3 persecution based on his aid of undocumented Korean

4 immigrants in China. Although “credible testimony alone may

5 be enough to carry the alien’s burden of proof,” an IJ may

6 “require that credible testimony of the alien be

7 corroborated in circumstances in which one would expect

8 corroborating evidence to be available and presented in the

9 immigration hearing.” Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193,

10 196-97 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and

11 alteration omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). 

12 Here, the IJ did not err in finding that Liu failed to

13 provide reasonably available corroborating evidence from his

14 cousin. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). The IJ

15 reasonably expected a letter from Liu’s cousin because,

16 according to Liu’s testimony, she was the only individual

17 with personal knowledge regarding continued efforts by the

18 Chinese police to arrest him. Although Liu testified that

19 his cousin mailed two letters but that he received neither,

20 the IJ reasonably found that a letter was reasonably

21 available because Liu could have requested that his cousin

22 send the letter via facsimile or email or attempted to

23 obtain the letter more than twice in the two years since he

3
1 filed his application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). Further2 more, the IJ reasonably afforded minimal weight to the

3 medical record Liu submitted, because it did not provide a

4 medical history or otherwise link the injuries found with

5 the harm to which Liu testified. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.

6 Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). 

7 Accordingly, the IJ did not err in finding that Liu had

8 failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. See 8

9 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97. 

10 Because this finding is dispositive of Liu’s asylum

11 application, we do not reach Liu’s arguments regarding the

12 denial of asylum as a matter of discretion. Moreover,

13 because Liu was unable to show the objective likelihood of

14 persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was

15 necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to

16 succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. Yan Juan

17 Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 254 (2d Cir. 2011). 

18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal

20 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

21 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition

22 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument

23 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of

4
1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule

2 34.1(b).

3 FOR THE COURT: 

4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

5