13-685
Liu v. Holder
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A089 714 514
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 October, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LIYU LIU, AKA LIYU LUI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-685
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; Luis E. Perez, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; E. Tayo Otunla,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, U.S.
30 Department of Justice, Washington
31 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 Liyu Liu, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 6,
7 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the January 31, 2011,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jesse B. Christensen,
9 denying Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Liyu Liu, No. A089 714 514 (B.I.A. Feb. 6,
12 2013), aff’g No. A089 714 514 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 31,
13 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 review both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
17 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
18 2008). The applicable standards of review are well
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia
20 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For
21 asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency
22 may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a
2
1 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the
2 plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her
3 statements and other record evidence without regard to
4 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
5 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-
6 64. Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
7 determination that Liu was not credible.
8 First, as to her Falun Gong claim, the agency
9 reasonably relied on Liu’s demeanor, noting that she was
10 evasive when responding to basic questions about her
11 distribution of Falun Gong fliers and whether she would
12 practice Falun Gong if removed to China. See 8 U.S.C.
13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d
14 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). Those findings are supported by
15 the hearing transcript. In addition, the agency reasonably
16 noted inconsistencies in her testimony and corroborating
17 evidence regarding police visits to her house following her
18 involvement with Falun Gong. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166
20 n.3. In light of her demeanor and inconsistent evidence in
21 this regard, the agency reasonably questioned the
22 plausibility of her testimony that she knowingly risked
3
1 persecution to distribute Falun Gong fliers even though she
2 was not herself a practitioner at the time. See Ying Li v.
3 BCIS, 529 F.3d 79, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2008).
4 In finding her not credible as to her family planning
5 claim, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that Liu
6 failed to state at her credible fear interview that she had
7 been forcibly sterilized in China. See 8 U.S.C.
8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-
9 67 & n.3; Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.
10 2005). As the agency found, the record of Liu’s credible
11 fear interview was sufficiently reliable because it included
12 a typed verbatim transcript of the questions asked and
13 answered with the assistance of a translator, indicated that
14 the interviewer explained the reasons for the interview, and
15 posed questions designed to elicit information regarding a
16 potential asylum claim. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d
17 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency was not compelled to
18 credit Liu’s explanation for the omission. See Majidi, 430
19 F.3d at 80.
20 Based on these findings, the agency reasonably found
21 Liu not credible, and denied her asylum, withholding of
22 removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-
23 66; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
24 2006).
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
7
5