18

- 3237 Liu v. Barr BIA Navarro , IJ A 205 904 262 

### 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 ELE CTRONIC**  **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 **8 th**  **d a**  **y of September**  **, two thousand twenty**  **.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN ,**  7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  8 **STEVEN J. MENASHI ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **MEI LING LIU ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v. 18** 

**- 3237**  16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES**  18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  19 **Respondent .**  20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Henry Zhang , New York , NY

. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Ethan P. Davis , Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General ; Brianne Whelan 26 Cohen , Senior Litigation Counsel ; 27 Stefanie A. Svoren

- Jay , Trial 282 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 D C. 4
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board 5
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, 6

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED

. 7

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

Republic of China , seeks review of a n October 3, 2018 decision 9

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

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

withholding of removal, an d relief under the Convention Against 12

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

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

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

underlying facts and procedural history in this case

. 16

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

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

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

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

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

determinations for substantial evidence). 22

“The testimony of the applicant may be sufficien t to sustain 233 the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the 1

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

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

facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refug ee

. 4

. . . Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should 5
provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible 6

testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant 7
does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the 8

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

credibility determination, a lack of corroboration can be an 10

independent basis for the denial of relief if the agency 11

identifies reasonably available evidence that should have been 12

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

F.3d at 196

– 9 8

. When denying a claim solely on an applicant’s 14

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

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

“ specific pieces of missi ng, relevant documentation ” and explain 17

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

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

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

Sun v. Sessions , 883 F.3d 23, 31 (2d Cir. 2018 ) . Advance notice 214 of the need for specific corroboration and an opportunity to 1

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

the ultimate burden of introducing such evidence without 3

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

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

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

reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such 7
corroborating evidence is unavailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); 8

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

The agency specifically identified Liu’s missing evidence : 10

she d id not corroborate that she was practicing Christianity 11

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

Liu, 575 F.3d at 198

– 99. She provided a letter from her old 13

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

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

friend who introduced her to Christianity , despite testifying 16

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

the agency found, such letters would have corroborated her 18

religious prac tice , and Liu did not demonstrate that she made 19

any attempt to obtain additional documentation to corroborate 20

this aspect of her claim. See id. at 198

. Her disagreement with 215 the evidentiary weight the agency placed on the absent evidence 1

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

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

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

evidence”). 5

N othing else i n this record compels us to conclude that 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 20 13

(2d Cir. 2010). 14

For the f oregoing reasons, the petition for review is 15

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 16

stays VACATED. 17

FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 19 Clerk of Court 20