18-3237

Liu v. Barr

BIA

Navarro, IJ

A205 904 262

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the

8th 4 day of September, two thousand twenty.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

9 STEVEN J. MENASHI,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 MEI LING LIU,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 18-3237

17 NAC

18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, New York, NY.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant

26 Attorney General; Brianne Whelan 

27 Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 

28 Stefanie A. Svoren-Jay, Trial 
2

1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

2 Litigation, United States 

3 Department of Justice, Washington, 

4 DC.

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board 

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

7 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

8 Petitioner Mei Ling Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s 

9 Republic of China, seeks review of an October 3, 2018 decision 

10 of the BIA affirming a September 26, 2017 decision of an 

11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liu’s application for asylum, 

12 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

13 Torture (“CAT”). See In re Mei Ling Liu, No. A 205 904 262 (B.I.A. 

14 Oct. 3, 2018), aff’g No. A 205 904 262 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City

15 Sept. 26, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

17 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. 

18 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 

19 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 

20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 

21 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing corroboration 

22 determinations for substantial evidence).

23 “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain 
3

1 the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the 

2 applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s 

3 testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific 

4 facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.

5 . . . Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should 

6 provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible 

7 testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant 

8 does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the 

9 evidence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Absent an adverse 

10 credibility determination, a lack of corroboration can be an 

11 independent basis for the denial of relief if the agency 

12 identifies reasonably available evidence that should have been 

13 presented. See id.; see also id. § 1252(b)(4); Chuilu Liu, 575 

14 F.3d at 196–98. When denying a claim solely on an applicant’s 

15 failure to provide corroborating evidence, the IJ must, either 

16 in her decision or otherwise in the record (1) identify the 

17 “specific pieces of missing, relevant documentation” and explain 

18 why it was “reasonably available”; (2) provide the petitioner 

19 “an opportunity to explain the omission”; and (3) “assess any 

20 explanation given.” Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 198; see also Wei 

21 Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 31 (2d Cir. 2018). Advance notice 
4

1 of the need for specific corroboration and an opportunity to 

2 gather the evidence are not required, because “the alien bears 

3 the ultimate burden of introducing such evidence without 

4 prompting from the IJ.” Wei Sun, 883 F.3d at 31 (quoting Chiulu 

5 Liu, 575 F.3d at 198). Where the IJ has identified the missing 

6 evidence, we may reverse the agency’s decision only if “a 

7 reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such 

8 corroborating evidence is unavailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); 

9 see Yan Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 253 (2d Cir. 2011).

10 The agency specifically identified Liu’s missing evidence:

11 she did not corroborate that she was practicing Christianity 

12 or attending church between July 2013 and March 2017. See Chuilu 

13 Liu, 575 F.3d at 198–99. She provided a letter from her old 

14 church and her current church, neither of which spoke to the 

15 time period at issue, and failed to provide a letter from the 

16 friend who introduced her to Christianity, despite testifying 

17 they were in contact until a few months before the hearing. As 

18 the agency found, such letters would have corroborated her 

19 religious practice, and Liu did not demonstrate that she made 

20 any attempt to obtain additional documentation to corroborate 

21 this aspect of her claim. See id. at 198. Her disagreement with 
5

1 the evidentiary weight the agency placed on the absent evidence

2 does not show it was unavailable. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 

3 324, 332, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We defer to the agency’s 

4 determination of the weight afforded to an alien’s documentary 

5 evidence”).

6 Nothing else in this record compels us to conclude that 

7 additional documentation was unavailable to Liu. See 8 U.S.C. 

8 § 1252(b)(4). Liu therefore has not established error in the 

9 agency’s conclusion that she did not meet her burden of proof. 

10 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 198. 

11 Because she failed to meet her burden of proof for asylum, she 

12 “necessarily” failed to meet the higher burden for withholding 

13 of removal and CAT relief. Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119-20

14 (2d Cir. 2010).

15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

17 stays VACATED.

18 FOR THE COURT: 

19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

20 Clerk of Court