Filed: Oct. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 15-2824 Liu v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A201 122 234 A205 631 257 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 (W
Summary: 15-2824 Liu v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A201 122 234 A205 631 257 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 (WI..
More
15-2824
Liu v. Lynch
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A201 122 234
A205 631 257
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 4th day of October, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 WEN LIU, CUI LI LIN,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 15-2824
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Farah Loftus, Los Angeles,
24 California.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Jesse M.
28 Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation,
31 United States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
33
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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Wen Liu and Cui Li Lin (together, the “Petitioners”),
6 natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek
7 review of an August 20, 2015 decision of the BIA affirming a
8 November 12, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
9 denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
11 re Wen Liu, Cui Li Lin, Nos. A201 122 234, A205 631 257 (B.I.A.
12 Aug. 20, 2015), aff’g Nos. A201 122 234, A205 631 257 (Immig.
13 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’
14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
15 in this case.
16 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
17 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
18 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
19 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66
21 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality
22 of the circumstances, . . . base a credibility determination
23 on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,”
2
1 and on inconsistencies in the record evidence “without regard
2 to whether” those inconsistencies go “to the heart of the
3 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also
4 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports
5 the agency’s determination that Petitioners were not credible
6 as to their claim that they were detained and beaten on account
7 of their Christian faith and that Lin suffered a miscarriage
8 as a result.
9 The IJ reasonably found that Petitioners gave the
10 impression that their testimony was memorized from a script.
11 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales,
12
430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (“the IJ has the unique
13 advantage in making credibility findings of having heard
14 directly from the applicant.”) (internal quotation marks
15 omitted). That finding is supported by the record because both
16 Liu and Lin were hesitant and unresponsive, or testified
17 inconsistently with one another, when asked about information
18 that was not provided in their applications. See Li Hua Lin
19 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see
20 also Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67 & n.3.
21 Liu was initially unresponsive when asked how long he and
22 Lin had been detained in the same room together and how often
23 Lin had discussed Christianity with the coworker who introduced
3
1 them to church. Liu ultimately provided answers that were
2 inconsistent with Lin’s answers. In addition, Petitioners
3 testified inconsistently regarding the following: (1) whether
4 Liu was home when Lin used a home pregnancy test to determine
5 if she was pregnant; (2) whether Liu was at work when Lin went
6 to the doctor to confirm her pregnancy; and (3) whether Liu went
7 alone or with Lin to apply for a birth permit. See Xiu Xia Lin,
8 534 F.3d at 164-65. The IJ was permitted to rely on these
9 inconsistencies regardless of whether they related to the heart
10 of Petitioners’ claim. See
id. at 167; 8 U.S.C.
11 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Even so, as the IJ concluded, Lin’s
12 pregnancy was related to her and Liu’s claim of religious
13 persecution because they asserted that they began attending
14 church due to their difficulties with conception and that Lin
15 miscarried as a result of being beaten for her religious
16 practice.
17 In making its adverse credibility finding, the agency
18 reasonably relied on Petitioners’ failure to submit
19 corroborating evidence sufficient to rehabilitate their
20 testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d
21 Cir. 2007). It reasonably gave little weight to unsworn
22 letters from their relative and friends. See Y.C. v. Holder,
4
1 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). Petitioners’ remaining
2 evidence did not corroborate their claim of past harm.
3 Given Petitioners’ demeanor, their inconsistent
4 testimony, and the lack of corroborating evidence, the agency’s
5 adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
6 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That
7 determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal,
8 and CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same
9 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57
10 (2d Cir. 2006).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED.
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
