Case Name: HE HUI 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: 2015-09-17
Citations: 615 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 13-2402
Parties: HE HUI LIU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DENNY CHIN and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 714–716

Head Matter:
HE HUI LIU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-2402.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 17, 2015.
Gerald Karikari, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Francis Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel; Kate D. Balaban, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington'D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DENNY CHIN and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner He Hui Liu, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a May 22, 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the November 28, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ"), denying his application for asylum; withholding of removal, and. relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re He Hui Liu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 22, 2013), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 28, 2011). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ's decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the bases for denying relief that were not considered by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). Accordingly, we consider only the adverse credibility determination. • 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). The agency may, "[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances," base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant's demeanor, inconsistencies in his statements, and other record evidence regardless of whether the inconsistencies go "to the heart of the applicant's claim." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Liu was not credible.
The agency reasonably relied in part on Liu's demeanor, noting that his testimony was often evasive, unresponsive, and vague. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). That finding is supported by the hearing transcript.
The agency's demeanor finding is further bolstered by record inconsistencies related to whether Liu was in hiding when he learned that officials wanted to sterilize him and whether he had seen his brother since arriving in the United States. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. The agency also reasonably relied on Liu's failure to provide credible evidence corroborating his claim or rehabilitating his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam); In re H-L-H & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010) (finding that unsworn -letters from the alien's friends and family were insufficient to provide substantial support for the alien's claims because they were interested witnesses not subject to cross-examination), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 133-38 (2d Cir.2012).
In light of these findings, the agency's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, and is dis-positive of Liu's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).