Filed: Oct. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-2760 Liu v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A200 208 177 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 NOTAT
Summary: 14-2760 Liu v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A200 208 177 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 NOTATI..
More
14-2760
Liu v. Lynch
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A200 208 177
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 TO 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 30th day of October, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 WENDI LIU,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 14-2760
18 NAC
19
20 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York,
26 New York.
27
28
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
2 Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
3 Russell J. E. Verby, Senior
4 Litigation Counsel; John D.
5 Williams, Trial Attorney, Office
6 of Immigration Litigation, United
7 States Department of Justice,
8 Washington, D.C.
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
13 is DENIED.
14 Petitioner Wendi Liu, a native and citizen of China,
15 seeks review of a July 7, 2014, decision of the BIA
16 affirming a May 1, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge
17 (“IJ”) denying Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of
18 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
19 (“CAT”). In re Wendi Liu, No. A200 208 177 (B.I.A. July 7,
20 2014), aff’g No. A200 208 177 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 1,
21 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
22 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
23 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
24 IJ’s decision, including the portions not explicitly
25 discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
26 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
27 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see
1 also Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.
2 2009).
3 For asylum applications such as Liu’s, governed by the
4 REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the
5 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on
6 the plausibility of the applicant’s account and
7 inconsistencies in his statements, so long as they
8 reasonably support an inference that the applicant is not
9 credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v.
10 Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). We defer “to an
11 IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of
12 the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-
13 finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu
14 Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
15 Liu claims that he was persecuted in China because he
16 had two children in violation of the family planning policy
17 and fears future persecution because Chinese officials
18 discovered that he worshipped at a house church.
19 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
20 credibility determination, based on the finding that aspects
21 of Liu’s claim were implausible, the internal
22 inconsistencies in Liu’s account, and the discrepancies
1 between Liu’s testimony and that of his witness.
2 The IJ reasonably found implausible Liu’s lack of
3 knowledge regarding the Chinese family planning policy and
4 his inability to explain why he was fined and detained. See
5 Siewe v. Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007). The
6 agency’s adverse credibility determination is further
7 supported by Liu’s internally inconsistent testimony
8 regarding how often he attended church in the United States
9 and by discrepancies in testimony about his attendance at
10 baptism class. For example, Liu testified that he attended
11 only one baptism class but was nonetheless baptized, while a
12 receptionist at the church testified on Liu’s behalf that 12
13 classes were required for baptism, that no one could be
14 baptized without attending the required classes, and that
15 she knew Liu had attended all 12 required classes. See Xiu
16 Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
17 Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s
18 findings that Liu’s claim was implausible and his testimony
19 inconsistent, the totality of the circumstances supports the
20 agency’s adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C.
21 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
22 Further, because the only evidence of a threat to Liu’s life
1 or freedom depended upon his credibility, the agency’s
2 finding that he was not credible necessarily precludes
3 success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal,
4 and CAT relief. Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d
5 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
17
