16-3247 Liang v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A206 288 210 

### 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 TO 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 for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **11 th**  **day of December, two thousand seventeen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **DENNY CHIN,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **XUN HUA LIANG,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 16-3247** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Michael Brown, Law Office of Michael 23 Brown, New York, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Janette L. Allen, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Neelam 28 Ihsanullah, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 302 States Department of Justice, 1 Washington, DC. 2 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 6

DENIED. 7 Petitioner Xun Hua Liang, a native and citizen of the 8 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 25, 2016 9 decision of the BIA affirming a June 15, 2015 decision of an 10 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liang’s application for 11 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 12 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xun Hua Liang, No. A206 288 210 13 (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2016), aff’g No. A206 288 210 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. 14 June 15, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 16 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 17 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 18 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 19 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 20 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 21 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 22 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 23 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 243 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 1

. . . written and oral statements
. . . , the internal consistency 2 of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements 3 with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether 4 an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart 5 of the applicant’s claim. . . .” 8 U.S.C. 6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 7 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that 8 Liang was not credible as to his claim that Chinese officials 9 detained and harmed him on account of his Catholicism. 10 The agency reasonably relied on record inconsistencies 11 regarding where on his body police shocked Liang with an 12 electric baton, whether he was forced to write and fingerprint 13 a letter guaranteeing he would stop his religious practice, and 14 what abuse he suffered when reporting to police. See 8 U.S.C. 15 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-67 16 & n.3. Liang did not provide compelling explanations for these 17 inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d 18 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible 19 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; 20 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be 214 compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks 1 omitted)). 2 Having questioned Liang’s credibility, the agency 3 reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his 4 credibility with reliable corroborating evidence. “An 5 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear 6 on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general 7 makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has 8 already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 9 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency did not err in 10 affording limited weight to letters provided by Liang’s mother 11 and friend because the lette rs were unsworn, the authors were 12 not available for cross-examination, and the friend’s letter 13 was inconsistent with Liang’s testimony in some respects. See 14 Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). And although 15 the parties stipulated that Liang’s daughter would testify 16 consistently with her affidavit, in which she averred that Liang 17 had been detained, interrogated, and mistreated in China, the 18 affidavit did not rehabilitate Liang’s credibility as it did 19 not discuss many of the specific facts underlying the IJ’s 20 inconsistency findings and was not based on first-hand 21 knowledge. 225 Given its findings regarding record inconsistencies and 1 lack of corroborating evidence, we conclude that the agency’s 2 adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial 3 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 4 F.3d at 167. That determination is dispositive of Liang’s 5 claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 6 because all three claims are based on the same factual 7 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 8 2006). 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 11 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 12 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 13 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 14 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 15 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 16 34.1(b). 17
FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 19