Jun Bo Liu v. Holder

13-16
Liu v. Holder
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A087 790 828
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 17th day of July, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JUN BO LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-16
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Keith S. Barnett, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Christina J.
28 Martin, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 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 GRANTED.

5 Jun Bo Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s

6 Republic of China, seeks review of a December 6, 2012,

7 decision of the BIA affirming the July 14, 2011, decision of

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mary M. Cheng, which denied his

9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jun Bo

11 Liu, No. A087 790 828 (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 2012), aff’g No. A087

12 790 828 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 14, 2011). We assume the

13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

14 procedural history in this case.

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

16 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d

17 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review

18 are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d

19 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Liu did not challenge the denial

20 of withholding of removal or CAT relief in his brief to this

21 Court; accordingly, we address only his asylum application.

22 The BIA did not review the IJ’s adverse credibility

23 determination, because she concluded that Liu did not

2
 1 sustain his burden of proof for failure to offer adequate

2 corroboration. Under the REAL ID Act, the agency may

3 require corroboration despite otherwise credible testimony,

4 and deny an application based on the failure to provide such

5 corroboration, if the IJ’s opinion identifies the relevant

6 evidence and explains why such evidence is reasonably

7 available. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see Yan Juan Chen

8 v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 251-53 (2c Cir. 2011).

9 Liu alleged three distinct claims for asylum: (1) in

10 2007, in his home province of Hebei, he had been detained

11 and beaten after he refused to pay the corrupt officials who

12 were attempting to extort money from him in exchange for a

13 new-business permit; (2) in May 2008, also in Hebei, he was

14 fined after the birth of his second daughter because he

15 violated the family planning policy, and escaped

16 sterilization only by fleeing his home; and (3) after he

17 fled, in December 2008, in Shanghai, he was again detained

18 and beaten after he joined a protest against corrupt

19 officials. The IJ supported her adverse credibility

20 determination by pointing to problems with Liu’s evidence

21 that affected all three of his claims, including

3
 1 inconsistencies, and implausible and vague testimony.1

2 However, she discussed corroboration only with regard to

3 Liu’s extortion claim. She indicated that Liu should have

4 submitted evidence to corroborate his claim that he had

5 attempted to start a business, such as letters from his

6 business partners or receipts for business expenses. The IJ

7 did not discuss corroboration with regard to Liu’s two other

8 claims. Moreover, the BIA did not discuss corroboration

9 with regard to Liu’s family planning and anti-corruption

10 claims; it rested the dismissal of Liu’s appeal solely on

11 the IJ’s finding regarding corroboration of Liu’s extortion.

12 Because the agency did not identify the corroborating

13 evidence that Liu should have provided in support of two of

14 his three claims, did not explain why that evidence would be

15 reasonably available, and did not give Liu an opportunity to

16 demonstrate that the evidence was not reasonably available,

17 the BIA’s decision cannot be sustained. See 8 U.S.C.

18 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), Yan Juan Chen, 658 F.3d at 252-54. As

1
An independent review of the record suggests that
substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
credibility finding, as there were numerous
inconsistencies in Liu’s evidence, and his testimony was
at times implausible and at times vague. The BIA did not
explain why it did not affirm the IJ’s credibility
finding, nor did it point to any errors in that finding.
4
 1 a result, we remand the petition to the agency for

2 consideration of whether Liu adequately corroborated his

3 family planning and anti-corruption claims, or for the BIA

4 to consider the IJ’s credibility determination.

5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

6 GRANTED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16

5