09-0290-ag
Liu v. Holder
BIA
Brennan, IJ
A099 025 381
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 23 rd day of February, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
REENA RAGGI,
PETER W. HALL,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
QIU HU LIU,
Petitioner,
v. 09-0290-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Feng Li, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Michelle Gorden Latour,
Assistant Director; Tracie N. Jones,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Qiu Hu Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of a December 30, 2008 order
of the BIA affirming the February 20, 2007 decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Brennan, which denied Liu’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiu Hu
Liu No. A099 025 381 (B.I.A. Dec. 30, 2008), aff’g No. A099
025 381 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 20, 2007). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ's
conclusion that a petitioner is not credible and, without
rejecting any of the IJ's grounds for decision, emphasizes
particular aspects of that decision, we will review both the
2
BIA's and IJ's opinions – or more precisely, we review the
IJ's decision including the portions not explicitly
discussed by the BIA.” Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic
v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v.
Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110-11 (2d Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. See Corovic, 519 F.3d at 95.
Under the REAL ID Act, which applies to Liu’s application
for relief, “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission
in making an adverse credibility determination as long as
the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that an
asylum applicant is not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
Here, the IJ noted a discrepancy between Liu’s
testimony and a letter from his father regarding the length
of time he was detained. Though his father provided a
second letter providing a time frame consistent with Liu’s
testimony, the IJ acted within her discretion in declining
to afford it evidentiary weight because Liu admitted that he
had informed his father of the discrepancy and requested the
second letter. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t Of Justice,
3
471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (observing that weight
afforded applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings
lies largely within discretion of IJ).
The IJ found additional inconsistencies between Liu’s
testimony and other documents in the record. Liu testified
inconsistently about the author of the documents he received
from church members; was unable to verify who gave the
letters to his father; and claimed that one letter was sent
to his lawyer and another to his home in Brooklyn, a claim
undercut by envelopes in the record indicating that both
were sent to his attorney. Liu’s inconsistent testimony
regarding the documents he offered was a proper basis upon
which to question both the documents’ authenticity and Liu’s
veracity. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 342.
Further, the IJ found that Liu’s demeanor was not
consistent with credibility. We defer to the IJ on this
assessment, see Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d
Cir. 2005), mindful of her unique advantage in hearing
directly from the asylum applicant, see Zhang v. INS, 386
F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir. 2004).
Ultimately, the discrepancies the IJ identified and its
assessment of petitioner’s demeanor provide substantial
evidence for her adverse credibility determination. See 8
4
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Because Liu’s claims for
relief were each based on the same factual predicate, the
agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief was proper. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156
(2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5