14-966 

Liu v. Lynch 

BIA 

Zagzoug, IJ 

A200 745 418

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 

6th 4 day of May, two thousand fifteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 RALPH K. WINTER,

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 LI LIU, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 14-966 

17 NAC 

18 

19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.1 21 

22 _____________________________________ 

23 

24 FOR PETITIONER: David A. Bredin, Flushing, New York. 

25 

26 

 

1 - Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General 

Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Eric 

H. Holder, Jr.
2 

1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 

2 Attorney General; Kiley Kane, Senior 

3 Litigation Counsel; Arthur L. Rabin, 

4 Trial Attorney, Office of 

5 Immigration Litigation, United 

6 States Department of Justice, 

7 Washington, D.C. 

8 

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

12 DENIED. 

13 Petitioner Li Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s 

14 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 6, 2014, decision 

15 of the BIA affirming a September 8, 2011, decision of an 

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

17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

18 Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Liu, No. A200 745 418 (B.I.A. Mar. 

19 6, 2014), aff’g No. A200 745 418 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 

20 8, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

21 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

22 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 

23 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 

24 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 

25 standards of review are well established. Xiu Xia Lin v. 
3 

1 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. 

2 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, 

3 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a 

4 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the 

5 plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her 

6 statements and other record evidence “without regard to 

7 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 

8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. 

9 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that 

10 Liu was not credible. 

11 The agency reasonably relied on Liu’s demeanor, noting that 

12 her responsive testimony on direct examination changed 

13 significantly upon cross-examination, when her testimony 

14 became evasive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also 

15 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). The 

16 agency’s demeanor finding and the overall credibility 

17 determination were bolstered by Liu’s inconsistent statements 

18 regarding whether doctors in China told her that she would be 

19 unable to use an intra-uterine device due to uterine damage 

20 caused by an abortion. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 

21 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 
4 

1 at 165-67. The agency also reasonably relied in part on Liu’s 

2 admission that she made false statements to U.S. consular 

3 officials to enter the United States at a time when she was not 

4 fleeing persecution. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 

5 (2d Cir. 2007). 

6 Having questioned Liu’s credibility, the agency reasonably 

7 relied further on her failure to provide certain corroborating 

8 evidence to rehabilitate her testimony. See Biao Yang v. 

9 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The IJ did not err 

10 in giving diminished weight to Liu’s brother-in-law’s letter 

11 because it was prepared for litigation and the author was an 

12 interested party not subject to cross-examination. See Y.C. 

13 v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013); Xiao Ji Chen v. 

14 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006). 

15 Moreover, as the BIA concluded, Liu failed to demonstrate that 

16 the IJ violated her due process rights by declining to provide 

17 her additional time to obtain corroborating evidence because 

18 she did not establish that she was prejudiced as a result. See 

19 Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008). 

20 Given the demeanor, inconsistency, false statement, and 

21 corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility 
5 

1 determination is supported by substantial evidence. See

2 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That finding is dispositive of 

3 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief insofar as they 

4 were based on Liu’s family planning claim. See Paul v. 

5 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). We lack 

6 jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of CAT relief independent 

7 of the credibility determination because Liu did not challenge 

8 the IJ’s decision to that extent before the BIA. See Karaj v. 

9 Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 119 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2006). 

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

13 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

14 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

15 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

17 34.1(b). 

18 FOR THE COURT: 

19 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk