12-604

Liu v. Holder

BIA

Hom, IJ

A077 316 791

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 7th 4 day of May, two thousand thirteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 XIE QIAN LIU,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 12-604

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New

24 York

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant

27 Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina,

28 Jr., Assistant Director; Sabatino F.

29 Leo, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, Civil

2 Division, United States Department

3 of Justice, Washington, D.C.

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

8 is DENIED.

9 Xie Qian Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s

10 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 17, 2012, order

11 of the BIA, affirming the April 14, 2010, decision of

12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom, which denied his

13 application for relief under the Convention Against Torture

14 (“CAT”). In re Xie Qian Liu, No. A077 316 791 (B.I.A. Jan.

15 17, 2012), aff’g No. A077 316 791 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City

16 April 14, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

18 We have reviewed the both the IJ’s and the BIA’s

19 opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey,

20 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The

21 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 

22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d

23 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

24

2
1 The agency did not err in concluding that Liu failed to

2 establish a likelihood that he would be tortured by or with

3 the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See

4 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361

5 F.3d 161, 168-71 (2d Cir. 2004). Liu alleged that he feared

6 that smugglers who had helped him illegally depart China

7 would torture him, and that the Chinese government would

8 torture him for having departed China illegally. As the

9 agency found, however, Liu’s admission that neither he nor

10 his family had ever been threatened by the smugglers to whom

11 he allegedly owed money, as well as Liu’s failure to provide

12 any particularized evidence to corroborate that he still

13 owed an outstanding debt to the smugglers, undermined his

14 claim that he would more likely than not be tortured by the

15 smugglers upon his return to China. See 8 C.F.R.

16 § 1208.16(c)(3)(i) (“In assessing whether it is more likely

17 than not that an applicant would be tortured . . . all

18 evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall

19 be considered, including, but not limited to . . .

20 [e]vidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant.”).

21 Furthermore, the agency reasonably found that the 2007

22 U.S. Department of State Profile of Asylum Claims did little

3
1 to reinforce Liu’s claimed fear of future torture, as it

2 indicated that the Chinese government rarely imposes

3 excessive fines or physically abuses individuals who have

4 departed the country illegally. Moreover, as the IJ found,

5 the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board report did not

6 establish that the Chinese government would acquiesce in any

7 actions by the smugglers against Liu for failing to pay the

8 alleged debt, as the report indicated that Chinese

9 authorities prosecute smugglers and officials who are found

10 to have collaborated with smugglers. See 8 C.F.R.

11 § 1208.18(a)(1) (requiring torture cognizable under CAT to

12 be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the

13 consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person

14 acting in an official capacity”); see also Khouzam, 361 F.3d

15 at 170–71. Finally, contrary to Liu’s argument, a

16 reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled to conclude

17 that the agency ignored any material evidence that he

18 submitted. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d

19 315, 338 n. 17 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that this Court will

20 “presume” that the agency “has taken into account all of the

21 evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly

22 suggests otherwise”); Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270,

23 275 (2d Cir. 2006).

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

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

3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

9 FOR THE COURT: 

10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

5