Filed: Oct. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 12-3991 Liu v. Holder BIA Zagzoug, IJ A200 743 269 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 NOTA
Summary: 12-3991 Liu v. Holder BIA Zagzoug, IJ A200 743 269 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..
More
12-3991
Liu v. Holder
BIA
Zagzoug, IJ
A200 743 269
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 30th day of October, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ZENG GUANG LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-3991
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, Christophe Law
24 Group, P.C., New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery,
28 Assistant Director, Thankful T.
29 Vanderstar, Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Zeng Guang Liu, a native and citizen of
6 China, seeks review of a September 12, 2012, decision of the
7 BIA affirming a May 20, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) Randa Zagzoug, denying Liu’s application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zeng Guang Liu, No. A200 743
11 269 (B.I.A. Sept. 12, 2012), aff’g No. A200 743 269 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City May 20, 2011). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decision, including the portions
17 of the IJ’s decision not explicitly discussed by the BIA.
18 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 The applicable standards of review are well-established. See
20 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d
21 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
22 For applications like this one, governed by the REAL ID
23 Act of 2005, the agency may base a credibility finding on an
2
1 asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his
2 account, and inconsistencies in her statements, without
3 regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s
4 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Matter of J–Y–C–, 24
5 I. & N. Dec. 260, 265 (B.I.A. 2007). Analyzed under these
6 standards, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is
7 supported by substantial evidence.
8 In finding Liu not to be credible, the IJ reasonably
9 relied on the discrepancy between the identification number
10 on his Resident Identity card and the identification number
11 on his household registry, as well as the handwritten change
12 to the household registry’s identification number. The
13 agency reasonably declined to credit Liu’s explanations for
14 these differences. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77,
15 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Because he did not raise the argument
16 in the agency proceedings, we will not consider his new
17 explanation for the discrepancy – that the numbers were
18 “zeroed out” for security purposes. See Lin Zhong v. U.S.
19 Dep’t of Justice,
480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007).
20 Liu has not contested the other basis for the IJ’s
21 adverse credibility determination – the IJ’s finding that
22 his testimony and evidence did not convincingly demonstrate
23 that he actually practiced Falun Gong – and this finding,
3
1 therefore, provides further support for the adverse
2 credibility determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529
3 F.3d 141, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2008).
4 Having found Liu not credible, the agency reasonably
5 noted that his failure to provide corroborative evidence
6 further undermined his credibility. An applicant’s failure
7 to corroborate his testimony may bear on credibility, either
8 because the absence of particular corroborating evidence is
9 thought to be suspicious, or because the overall absence of
10 corroboration makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate
11 testimony that has already been called into question. See
12 Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
13 Here, Liu failed to provide any documentary support for
14 his testimony that he sought medical treatment for a work-
15 related injury and, contrary to his contention, he was
16 questioned about the lack of corroboration during the merits
17 hearing. Moreover, his failure to corroborate was
18 especially relevant given his testimony that his workplace
19 injury, and the ineffectiveness of medical treatment, led
20 him to begin practicing Falun Gong. Accordingly, the
21 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
22 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
23 Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
4
1 Having reasonably found that Liu failed to establish
2 eligibility for asylum on credibility grounds, the agency
3 did not err in denying withholding of removal and relief
4 under the CAT, inasmuch as these claims shared the same
5 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-
6 57 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
7
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
