Case Name: BIN LIU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-21
Citations: 617 F. App'x 104
Docket Number: No. 14-914
Parties: BIN LIU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 617
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
BIN LIU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-914.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 21, 2015.
Henry Zhang, Zhang & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director; Eric W. Marstellar, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Bin Liu, a native and citizen of The People's Republic of China, seeks review of a February 14, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming a March 28, 2012; decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying Liu's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Bin Liu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 14, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 28, 2012). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We have considered both the IJ's and the BIA's opinions "for the sake of completeness." Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam).
For asylum applications like Liu's, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, "[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances . base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant's or witness's account," and inconsistencies in an applicant's statements and other record evidence "without regard to whether" they go "to the heart of the applicant's claim." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Here, the IJ's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.
The IJ reasonably relied on material discrepancies between Liu's asylum application and testimony, including the date of his arrest. Moreover, Liu testified that police burned his underground church down after he was arrested, but his application made no mention of this incident. These inconsistencies are supported by the record. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. The IJ was not required to accept Liu's explanations. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005).
The IJ also reasonably relied on Liu's inconsistent testimony concerning his household register. Liu submitted a household register booklet showing he lived with his uncle, testified that the register was accurate, but then later testified that he had never seen the booklet or lived with his uncle. This inconsistency is supported by the record, and the IJ was entitled to rely on it. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
The IJ may have erred in finding Lin's various physical descriptions of his church inconsistent, but this error would not require remand. Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 402 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that we are not required to remand if it is "clear that the same decision would have been reached in the absence of the errors"). Ultimately, the IJ's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). This finding was sufficient to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as all three claims were based on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006) (withholding); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005) (CAT).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.