Filed: May 07, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 12-604 Liu v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A077 316 791 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: 12-604 Liu v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A077 316 791 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 “..
More
12-604
Liu v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A077 316 791
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 7th day of May, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 XIE QIAN LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-604
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New
24 York
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina,
28 Jr., Assistant Director; Sabatino F.
29 Leo, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, Civil
2 Division, United States Department
3 of Justice, 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
8 is DENIED.
9 Xie Qian Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s
10 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 17, 2012, order
11 of the BIA, affirming the April 14, 2010, decision of
12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom, which denied his
13 application for relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Xie Qian Liu, No. A077 316 791 (B.I.A. Jan.
15 17, 2012), aff’g No. A077 316 791 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
16 April 14, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
18 We have reviewed the both the IJ’s and the BIA’s
19 opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey,
20 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The
21 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d
23 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
24
2
1 The agency did not err in concluding that Liu failed to
2 establish a likelihood that he would be tortured by or with
3 the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See
4 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361
5 F.3d 161, 168-71 (2d Cir. 2004). Liu alleged that he feared
6 that smugglers who had helped him illegally depart China
7 would torture him, and that the Chinese government would
8 torture him for having departed China illegally. As the
9 agency found, however, Liu’s admission that neither he nor
10 his family had ever been threatened by the smugglers to whom
11 he allegedly owed money, as well as Liu’s failure to provide
12 any particularized evidence to corroborate that he still
13 owed an outstanding debt to the smugglers, undermined his
14 claim that he would more likely than not be tortured by the
15 smugglers upon his return to China. See 8 C.F.R.
16 § 1208.16(c)(3)(i) (“In assessing whether it is more likely
17 than not that an applicant would be tortured . . . all
18 evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall
19 be considered, including, but not limited to . . .
20 [e]vidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant.”).
21 Furthermore, the agency reasonably found that the 2007
22 U.S. Department of State Profile of Asylum Claims did little
3
1 to reinforce Liu’s claimed fear of future torture, as it
2 indicated that the Chinese government rarely imposes
3 excessive fines or physically abuses individuals who have
4 departed the country illegally. Moreover, as the IJ found,
5 the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board report did not
6 establish that the Chinese government would acquiesce in any
7 actions by the smugglers against Liu for failing to pay the
8 alleged debt, as the report indicated that Chinese
9 authorities prosecute smugglers and officials who are found
10 to have collaborated with smugglers. See 8 C.F.R.
11 § 1208.18(a)(1) (requiring torture cognizable under CAT to
12 be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
13 consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person
14 acting in an official capacity”); see also Khouzam, 361 F.3d
15 at 170–71. Finally, contrary to Liu’s argument, a
16 reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled to conclude
17 that the agency ignored any material evidence that he
18 submitted. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d
19 315, 338 n. 17 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that this Court will
20 “presume” that the agency “has taken into account all of the
21 evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly
22 suggests otherwise”); Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,
437 F.3d 270,
23 275 (2d Cir. 2006).
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
