13-2402
Liu v. Lynch
BIA
Zagzoug, IJ
A200 746 819
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 September, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 HE HUI LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-2402
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Francis Fraser, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Kate D. Balaban,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, U.S.
2 Department of Justice, Washington
3 D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner He Hui Liu, a native and citizen of the
10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 22, 2013,
11 decision of the BIA, affirming the November 28, 2011,
12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re He Hui
15 Liu, No. A200 746 819 (B.I.A. May 22, 2013), aff’g No. A200
16 746 819 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 28, 2011). We assume the
17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
20 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the bases
21 for denying relief that were not considered by the BIA. See
22 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522
23 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we consider only the adverse
24 credibility determination. The applicable standards of
2
1 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
2 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008)
3 (per curiam). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality
4 of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an
5 asylum applicant’s demeanor, inconsistencies in his
6 statements, and other record evidence regardless of whether
7 the inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s
8 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
9 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
10 determination that Liu was not credible.
11 The agency reasonably relied in part on Liu’s demeanor,
12 noting that his testimony was often evasive, unresponsive,
13 and vague. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Majidi v.
14 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding
15 is supported by the hearing transcript.
16 The agency’s demeanor finding is further bolstered by
17 record inconsistencies related to whether Liu was in hiding
18 when he learned that officials wanted to sterilize him and
19 whether he had seen his brother since arriving in the United
20 States. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d
21 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
22 165-66. The agency also reasonably relied on Liu’s failure
3
1 to provide credible evidence corroborating his claim or
2 rehabilitating his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
3 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam); In re H-L-H-
4 & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010) (finding that
5 unsworn letters from the alien’s friends and family were
6 insufficient to provide substantial support for the alien’s
7 claims because they were interested witnesses not subject to
8 cross-examination), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin
9 Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 133-38 (2d Cir. 2012).
10 In light of these findings, the agency’s adverse
11 credibility determination is supported by substantial
12 evidence, and is dispositive of Liu’s claims for asylum,
13 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C.
14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57
15 (2d Cir. 2006).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
18 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
19 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
20 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
21 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
22
23
4
1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
7
5