Filed: Aug. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-3183-ag BIA Liu v. Holder Weisel, IJ A099 029 402 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 NO
Summary: 11-3183-ag BIA Liu v. Holder Weisel, IJ A099 029 402 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 NOT..
More
11-3183-ag BIA
Liu v. Holder Weisel, IJ
A099 029 402
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 21st day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MEI Y. LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-3183-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Carl H. McIntyre, Assistant
27 Director, W. Daniel Shieh; Trial
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1
2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
5 is DENIED.
6 Mei Y. Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s
7 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 13, 2011, decision
8 of the BIA affirming the August 13, 2009, decision of
9 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, which denied her
10 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
11 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mei Y.
12 Liu, No. A099 029 402 (B.I.A. Jul. 13, 2011), aff’g No. A099
13 029 402 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City, Aug. 13, 2009). We assume
14 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
15 procedural history in this case.
16 Under the circumstances of this case we have reviewed
17 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
18 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
19 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia
21 Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
22 I. Forced Abortion – Adverse Credibility Finding
23 For asylum applications, like Liu’s, governed by the
2
1 REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of
2 the circumstances, . . . base a credibility finding on . . .
3 the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written
4 or oral statements,. . . without regard to whether an
5 inconsistency . . . goes to the heart of the applicant’s
6 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
7 F.3d at 165-66.
8 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
9 credibility determination, which was reasonably based on
10 Liu’s failure to mention her alleged abortion in an airport
11 interview or credible fear interview despite basing her
12 asylum application on her forced abortion and testifying at
13 length concerning her abortion before the IJ. Xiu Xia Lin,
14 534 F.3d at 166 (For purposes of analyzing a credibility
15 determination, “[a]n inconsistency and an omission are . . .
16 functionally equivalent.”). Furthermore, despite Liu’s
17 claims that her airport and credible fear interviews were
18 inherently unreliable, an examination of the record
19 demonstrates that the interviews represented a “sufficiently
20 accurate record” of her statements. See Ramsameachire v.
21 Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178-80 (2d Cir. 2004) (when
22 discrepancies arise from an applicant’s statements in an
3
1 airport or credible fear interview, a reviewing court
2 examines the record to ensure it represents a “sufficiently
3 accurate record” upon which to base a credibility
4 determination). The record reflects: (1) a verbatim
5 transcript of both of Liu’s interviews; (2) that the
6 questions posed to Liu were open-ended and designed to
7 elicit the details of her asylum claim;(3) that Liu freely
8 revealed to her interviewing officers information concerning
9 her fear of harm at the hands of Wang, her unwanted suitor,;
10 and (4) that Liu conceded that she understood the
11 interpretation provided during both interviews. While Liu
12 asserted that she omitted the abortion from her interviews
13 because she was young and unaware that a forced abortion was
14 a basis for asylum, the agency reasonably rejected these
15 explanations. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d
16 Cir. 2005). Ultimately, because the agency’s adverse
17 credibility determination was based on a “sufficiently
18 accurate” record of Liu’s statements, it was supported by
19 substantial evidence.
Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 179-80;
20 see also Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because the agency’s
21 adverse credibility determination was supported by
22 substantial evidence, it necessarily precludes success on
4
1 Liu’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief on
2 the basis of her alleged abortion. See Paul v. Gonzales,
3 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); see Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
4 Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
5 II. Forced Marriage – Waiver
6 The agency did not err in determining that the harm Liu
7 asserted at the hands of Wang, her unwanted suitor, did not
8 bear a nexus to a protected ground. In addition to showing
9 past persecution or a well-founded fear, asylum eligibility
10 requires that the persecution an individual alleges be on
11 account of the applicant’s race, religion, nationality,
12 political opinion, or membership in a particular social
13 group. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Liu argues that she
14 suffered past persecution because Wang “harassed her and
15 used boiling water to injure her leg” and that her future
16 fear of harm by Wang is well-founded because he is still
17 looking for her. However, this argument is not responsive
18 to the BIA’s finding that “to the extent [Liu] argues that
19 her harassment stemming from her refusal to marry the son of
20 a local town leader qualifies her for asylum, she has failed
21 to establish the requisite nexus under the Act.” Moreover,
22 while CAT relief does not require a nexus to a protected
23 ground, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17, Liu likewise
5
1 fails to present any arguments regarding her CAT relief
2 eligibility based on her fear of harm by Wang.
3 Consequently, we decline to consider any arguments
4 concerning the harm she suffered or fears as a result of her
5 refusal to marry Wang. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426
6 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (issues not
7 sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and
8 normally will not be addressed on appeal).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
6
