21

- 6291 Jin

- Lian v. Garland BIA Conroy , IJ A 206 636 124 

### 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 APP ENDIX 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 for the Second 1 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on th e 12 th da y of July , two thousand twenty

3 t hree

. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JON O. NEWMAN, 7 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 LIU JIN

- LIAN , 13 Petitioner , 14 15

v. 21

- 6291 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent

. 20

_____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER : Gary J. Yerman, Esq. , New York , NY

. 232 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton , Principal Deputy Assistant 1 Attorney General ; Russell J. E. Verby , Senior 2 Litigation Counsel ; John D. Williams , Senior 3 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, D C. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 7
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 8
DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Liu Jin

- Lian , a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 10

China , seeks review of a n April 30, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a n October 11

9, 2018 , decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for 12
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13
(“CAT”)

. In re Liu Jin

- Lian , No. A 206 636 124 (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2021 ), aff’g No. A 14

206 636 124 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 15
with the underlying facts and procedural history. 16

Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s 17
opinions “for the sake of completeness

. ” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 18
F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006)

. We review adverse credibility determinations “ under 19

the substantial evidence standard, ” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 20
2018), and treat the agency’s fact

- finding as “conclusive unless any reasonable 213 adjudicator would be compelled to con clude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 1
§ 1252(b)(4)(B). 2
“Considering the totality of the circumstances

. . . a trier of fact may base a 3
credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the 4
applicant

. . . , the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and 5
oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the 6
consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . without regard to 7
whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, o r falsehood goes to the heart of the 8
applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 9
“We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 10
circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder could make such an 11
adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 12
2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Liu alleged that she was arrested and 13
detained in China for attending an underground Christian church. Substantial 14
evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 15
We defer to the IJ’s demeanor finding, particularly where, as here, it is 16

linked to inconsistent testimony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1 )(B)(iii); Li Hua Lin v. U.S. 17
Dep’t of Jus t

. , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006) (“We can be

. . . confident in our review 184 of observations about an applicant’s demeanor whe re, as here, they are supported 1
by specific examples of inconsistent testimony.”). Liu was unresponsive and 2
evasive during much of her testimony, including when asked if she ha d applied 3

for a U.S. visa in 2008, years before her alleged persecution

. Although she argues 4

that the questions were confusing, she did not express such confusion before the 5
IJ or on appeal to the BIA, and the record reflects straightforward questions about 6
the visa application. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Jus t. , 480 F.3d 104, 122

– 23 (2d 7
Cir. 2007) ( e xplaining that “ usually

. . . issues not raised to the BIA will not be 8
examined by the reviewing court ” ) ; Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 9
2005) (noting that a n IJ “is in the best position to discern, often at a glance, whether 10
a question t hat may appear poorly worded on a printed page was, in fact, 11
confusing or well understood by those who heard it”). 12

The adverse credibility determination was further bolstered by 13

inconsistencies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Liu first testified that she never 14
applied for a visa, but changed her testimony when confronted with the 15
application

. Nor does she contest that her 2008 visa application stated that her 16

husband was in China, which was inc onsistent with her testimony that he h as been 17

in the United States since 2005

. Liu ’s argument that she forgot that she applied 185 for a visa is not compelling

. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80 (“ A petitioner must do more 1
than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; 2

he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled to credit his 3
testimony.” (quotation marks omitted))

. 4
The agency also reasonably concluded that the lack of reliable corroboration 5

further undermined Liu ’s credibility. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 6
(2d Cir. 2007) (“A n applicant ’ s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear 7
on credibility, becau se the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant 8
unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question. ” ). The 9
IJ did not err in relying on the lack of an affidavit or testimony from Liu ’s husband 10

because he was in the United States and would directly benefit from a grant of 11
asylum

. See Yan Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 253 (2d Cir. 2011). And the IJ 12
did not err in giving limited weight to a letter from Liu’s mother who was an 13

inte rested party who wa s not available for cross

- examination. See Likai Gao v. 14

Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 149 (2d Cir. 2020) (upholding an IJ’s decision to afford limited 15
weight to letter from spouse and friend in China ); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 16
(2d Cir. 2 013) (“We defer to the agency’s determination of the weight afforded to 17
an alien’s documentary evidence .” )

. 186 In sum, the demeanor finding, the inconsistencies, and the lack of reliable 1
corroboration provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility 2

determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167

. The 3
adverse credibility det ermination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of 4

removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief are based on the same 5
discredited factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 6
2006). 7
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED

. All pending 8
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 9

FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 11 Clerk of Court 12 13