Court Opinion

ID: 9366272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 16:00:43.304427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.140669
License: Public Domain

20-1510
     Liu v. Garland
                                                                            BIA
                                                                       Barcus, IJ
                                                                    A205 421 499
                           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 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
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 26th day of January, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
 9            MYRNA PÉREZ,
10            ALISON J. NATHAN,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   CHANG-JIE LIU,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                    v.                                  20-1510
18                                                        NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                  Adedayo O. Idowu, Law Offices of
25                                    Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, NY
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                  Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
28                                    Attorney General; Anthony P.
 1                                     Nicastro, Assistant Director;
 2                                     Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney,
 3                                     Office of Immigration Litigation,
 4                                     United States Department of
 5                                     Justice, Washington, DC.

 6          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

 8   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

 9   is DENIED.

10          Petitioner Chang-Jie Liu, a native and citizen of the

11   People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 13, 2020

12   decision of the BIA affirming a June 6, 2018 decision of an

13   Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for

14   asylum,      withholding    of    removal,        and    relief    under   the

15   Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).               In re Chang-Jie Liu, No.

16   A 205 421 499 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 421 499

17   (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 6, 2018).                 We assume the parties’

18   familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19          We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the

20   BIA.    See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520,

21   522    (2d    Cir.   2005).        We       review      adverse   credibility

22   determinations for substantial evidence, see Hong Fei Gao v.

23   Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat the

24   agency’s      findings     of    fact       as   “conclusive      unless   any
                                             2
 1   reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

 2   contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

 3       “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

 4   relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility

 5   determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of

 6   the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the

 7   applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,

 8   the consistency of such statements with other evidence of

 9   record . . . , and any inaccuracies of falsehoods in such

10   statements,   without   regard   to   whether   an   inconsistency,

11   inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s

12   claim,   or   any   other   relevant      factor.”       8   U.S.C.

13   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).    “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility

14   determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,

15   it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an

16   adverse credibility ruling.”         Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534

17   F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d

18   at 76.   Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility

19   determination.

20       Liu alleged that the police arrested, beat, interrogated,

21   and detained him after they raided the underground Christian

                                      3
 1   church he attended.             The agency reasonably concluded that

 2   Liu’s testimony lacked detail.               See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft,

 3   329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Where an applicant gives

 4   very spare testimony . . . the [agency] may fairly wonder

 5   whether the testimony is fabricated.”), overruled on other

 6   grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 494 F.3d 296

 7   (2d Cir. 2007).       When questioned, Liu was unable to provide

 8   details of his own conversion experience, when his friend

 9   introduced him to the gospel, how his religious conversion

10   affected    his    life,    why    the       photograph   accompanying   his

11   pastor’s letter showed him as much younger than when he

12   purportedly joined the church, and when his brother came to

13   the United States or where he lived.

14       Having        questioned       Liu’s       credibility,    the    agency

15   reasonably    relied       on    his     failure    to    rehabilitate   his

16   testimony    with     reliable         corroborating      evidence.      “An

17   applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may

18   bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in

19   general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony

20   that has already been called into question.”                  Biao Yang v.

21   Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).                   As the agency

                                              4
1    found,       the   letter   from   Liu’s   church    in    China       did    not

2    corroborate Liu’s description of the raids on the church or

3    Liu’s arrest, and Liu’s mother’s letter did not corroborate

4    that    Liu    received     medical    treatment    or    that       the   police

5    continued to look for him five years after he left China.

6           The     inconsistency,      lack    of   detail,     and        lack    of

7    corroboration provided substantial evidence for the adverse

 8   credibility           determination.                See          8         U.S.C.

9    § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.                           The

10   adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,

11   withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms

12   of relief were based on the same factual predicate.                    See Paul

13   v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

14          For the foregoing 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

                                            5