13-294
Liu v. Holder
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A087 755 124
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 31st day of July, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 XING QI LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-294
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant
27 Director; Arthur L. Rabin, Attorney,
28 Office of Immigration Litigation,
29 U.S. Department of Justice,
30 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 Xing Qi Liu, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 14,
7 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the July 21, 2011,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan A. Vomacka,
9 denying Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Xing Qi Liu, No. A087 755 124 (B.I.A. Dec.
12 14, 2012), aff’g No. A087 755 124 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July
13 21, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang
17 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 The applicable standards of review are well established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v.
20 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency
21 may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a
22 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the
2
1 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his
2 statements and other record evidence without regard to
3 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
4 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-
5 64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
6 determination that Liu was not credible.
7 The agency reasonably relied on Liu’s demeanor, noting
8 that his testimony was hesitant at times. See 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d
10 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the
11 hearing transcript, and further bolstered by specific
12 examples of contradictory statements. See Li Hua Lin v.
13 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006) (“We
14 can be still more confident in our review of observations
15 about an applicant’s demeanor where, as here, they are
16 supported by specific examples of inconsistent testimony.”).
17 Indeed, the agency reasonably found inconsistencies in the
18 record related to when Liu began attending his current
19 church and whether he has ever had a passport, held a job in
20 the United States, or lived in upstate New York. Liu’s
21 explanations for many of these inconsistencies were
22 themselves inconsistent. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
3
1 The agency also reasonably questioned Liu’s credibility
2 based on his inability to define “prayer.” Liu claimed to
3 have begun practicing Christianity five years prior to his
4 hearing and had testified on direct that he “pray[ed]” in
5 church in China. See Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 90 (2d
6 Cir. 2006) (providing that the agency may err in basing a
7 credibility finding on an applicant’s lack of doctrinal
8 knowledge, but recognizing that there may be “instances in
9 which the nature of an individual applicant’s account would
10 render his lack of a certain degree of doctrinal knowledge
11 suspect and could therefore provide substantial evidence in
12 support of an adverse credibility finding.”). Similarly,
13 the agency did not err in questioning his assertion that he
14 had not been baptized because he only recently had
15 discovered his church’s requirements for baptism, given his
16 testimony that he had known of the importance of being
17 baptized even while in China and that he was in regular
18 attendance at his church. See id.
19 Having questioned Liu’s credibility, the agency
20 reasonably relied further on his failure to provide
21 independent corroborating evidence. See Biao Yang v.
22 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
23
4
1 Accordingly, the agency’s adverse credibility
2 determination is supported by substantial evidence, and was
3 dispositive of Liu’s claims for asylum, withholding of
4 removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167;
5 see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
10 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
13 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
16
5