Filed: Apr. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-4099 Liu v. Lynch BIA Nelson, IJ A087 652 071 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
Summary: 14-4099 Liu v. Lynch BIA Nelson, IJ A087 652 071 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 NOTATIO..
More
14-4099
Liu v. Lynch
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A087 652 071
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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 19th day of April, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 HUAGUI LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-4099
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General, Civil
27 Division; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
28 Assistant Director; Deitz P. Lefort,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, 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 is
8 DENIED.
9 Petitioner Huagui Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks
10 review of an October 10, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming
11 a July 10, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying
12 Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
13 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
14 Huagui Liu, No. A087 652 071 (B.I.A. Oct. 10, 2014), aff’g No.
15 A087 652 071 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jul. 10, 2013). We assume
16 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
17 procedural history in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered
19 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
20 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
21 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The
22 applicable standards of review are well established. See
2
1 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
2 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 As the Government correctly argues, Liu has waived any
4 challenges to the agency’s credibility finding or well-founded
5 fear determination. Liu’s brief contains a heading that refers
6 to his credibility, but what follows lacks any argument about
7 this case. This is insufficient to challenge the credibility
8 determination. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540,
9 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Liu has preserved only a challenge to
10 the agency’s corroboration finding.
11 Given the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, the
12 agency properly considered Liu’s lack of corroborating
13 evidence. An applicant’s failure to corroborate testimony may
14 bear on credibility, either because the absence of particular
15 corroborating evidence is suspicious, or because the absence
16 of corroboration makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate
17 testimony that has already been called into question. See Biao
18 Yang v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
19 A letter from Liu’s wife was entitled to minimal weight
20 because it was prepared for purposes of litigation, it was not
21 notarized, and the author was an interested party. Y.C. v.
3
1 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013); In re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-,
2 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010), rev’d on other grounds by
3 Hui Lin Huang v. Holder,
677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012).
4 The IJ reasonably gave diminished weight to a detention
5 certificate because, unlike other documents, Liu failed to
6 authenticate it by any means. Although the agency may err in
7 rejecting a government document based solely on a failure to
8 satisfy the authentication regulations, see Cao He Lin v. U.S.
9 Dep’t of Justice,
428 F.3d 391, 404-05 (2d Cir. 2005), it does
10 not err where, as here, it discounts documentary evidence for
11 failure to authenticate by any means and there are “legitimate
12 concerns” about the applicant’s credibility, Qin Wen Zheng v.
13 Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2007).
14 The agency also reasonably considered Liu’s failure to
15 provide any documentation from his Chinese church, the hospital
16 that treated him for his stomach ailment, or the police. Xiao
17 Ji Chen,
471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006). The IJ’s
18 corroboration finding was supported by substantial evidence.
19 Yan Juan Chen v. Holder,
658 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 2011).
20 Liu has waived any challenge to the IJ’s adverse
21 credibility determination and failed to meet his burden with
4
1 corroborating evidence, and so the agency did not err in denying
2 asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). As all of Liu’s claims
3 share the same factual predicate, the burden finding is
4 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
5 Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
8 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
9 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
10 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
11 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
12 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
13 34.1(b).
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
