12-646
Liu v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A089 253 917
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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 22nd day of July, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 JING XI LIU, AKA WANSONG JIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 12-646
17 v. NAC
18
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Matthew J. Harris, Long Island City,
26 New York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
29 Attorney General; Greg D. Mack,
30 Senior Litigation Counsel; Manuel A.
31 Palau, Trial Attorney, Office of
32 Immigration Litigation, Civil
33 Division, United States Department
34 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner, Jing Xi Liu, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 27,
7 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the October 8, 2009,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, which
9 denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
11 re Jing Xi Liu, No. A089 253 917 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2012),
12 aff’g No. A089 253 917 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 8, 2009).
13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
17 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
20 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because Liu does not challenge the
21 agency’s denial of CAT relief, we have reviewed only the
22 denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
23
2
1 Liu argues that the agency erred by finding that he
2 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
3 persecution based on his aid of undocumented Korean
4 immigrants in China. Although “credible testimony alone may
5 be enough to carry the alien’s burden of proof,” an IJ may
6 “require that credible testimony of the alien be
7 corroborated in circumstances in which one would expect
8 corroborating evidence to be available and presented in the
9 immigration hearing.” Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193,
10 196-97 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and
11 alteration omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).
12 Here, the IJ did not err in finding that Liu failed to
13 provide reasonably available corroborating evidence from his
14 cousin. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). The IJ
15 reasonably expected a letter from Liu’s cousin because,
16 according to Liu’s testimony, she was the only individual
17 with personal knowledge regarding continued efforts by the
18 Chinese police to arrest him. Although Liu testified that
19 his cousin mailed two letters but that he received neither,
20 the IJ reasonably found that a letter was reasonably
21 available because Liu could have requested that his cousin
22 send the letter via facsimile or email or attempted to
23 obtain the letter more than twice in the two years since he
3
1 filed his application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). Further-
2 more, the IJ reasonably afforded minimal weight to the
3 medical record Liu submitted, because it did not provide a
4 medical history or otherwise link the injuries found with
5 the harm to which Liu testified. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
6 Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 Accordingly, the IJ did not err in finding that Liu had
8 failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. See 8
9 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97.
10 Because this finding is dispositive of Liu’s asylum
11 application, we do not reach Liu’s arguments regarding the
12 denial of asylum as a matter of discretion. Moreover,
13 because Liu was unable to show the objective likelihood of
14 persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was
15 necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to
16 succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. Yan Juan
17 Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 254 (2d Cir. 2011).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
20 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
21 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
22 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
23 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
4
1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
2 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5