Filed: Sep. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-2521 Chen-Liu v. Sessions BIA Wright, IJ A205 199 737 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 TH
Summary: 16-2521 Chen-Liu v. Sessions BIA Wright, IJ A205 199 737 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..
More
16-2521
Chen-Liu v. Sessions
BIA
Wright, IJ
A205 199 737
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 11th day of September, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YUN XIAN CHEN-LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-2521
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Song Park, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Michele Y. F.
28 Sarko, Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
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 Petitioner Yun Xian Chen-Liu, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 14, 2016,
7 decision of the BIA affirming a May 21, 2015, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Yun Xian Chen-Liu, No. A205 199 737 (B.I.A. July
11 14, 2016), aff’g No. A205 199 737 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 21,
12 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
13 facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Chuilu
19 Liu v. Holder,
575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency
20 did not err in finding that Chen-Liu failed to satisfy her burden
21 of proof as to her claim that family planning officials sought
22 to sterilize her and fined her based on her violation of China’s
2
1 family planning policy with the births of her two children out
2 of wedlock.
3 “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to
4 sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only
5 if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the
6 applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers
7 to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant
8 is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Chuilu
9 Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97. In this case, it was reasonable for
10 the agency to require corroboration because the record,
11 including Chen-Liu’s testimony, was inconsistent regarding
12 whether she had been sterilized, when she was born, and whether
13 she was injured on her foot or knee during a scuffle with family
14 planning officials. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where
15 the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide
16 evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such
17 evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have
18 the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.”); see
19 also Chuilu
Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97.
20 The agency also did not err in concluding that Chen-Liu
21 failed to provide reasonably available reliable evidence that
22 she has two children born in China. As an initial matter, the
3
1 IJ reasonably declined to credit unauthenticated notarial birth
2 certificates for Chen-Liu’s children because, as Chen-Liu
3 acknowledged, they were issued after she left China in 2011 and
4 were not based on records of her children’s births but rather
5 on information her family members provided to the village
6 planning committee. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
7 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that determination
8 of the weight of evidence is largely a matter of agency
9 discretion); Matter of H-L-H-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214-16 &
10 n.5 (BIA 2010) (declining to credit village committee notices
11 that were unauthenticated, unsigned, and prepared for purposes
12 of removal proceedings), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin
13 Huang v. Holder,
677 F.3d 130, 133-38 (2d Cir. 2012). The IJ
14 also did not err in giving little weight to an unsworn letter
15 from Chen-Liu’s mother because her mother was an interested
16 party who was not available for cross-examination. See Y.C.
17 v. Holder,
741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). And the IJ
18 reasonably noted that Chen-Liu could have obtained more
19 reliable evidence that she has two children in China, such as
20 a letter from her ex-boyfriend’s sister, with whom her daughter
21 lived for five years and with whom Chen-Liu is in contact, or
22 records (that she admitted were not unobtainable) from the
4
1 children’s schools in China. See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 198
2 (“[T]he alien bears the ultimate burden of introducing such
3 evidence without prompting from the IJ.”).
4 Chen-Liu also failed to submit evidence to support her
5 testimony that she had lived in many places while in China. The
6 IJ was not compelled to credit Chen-Liu’s explanation that her
7 father’s household registration listed her as living in his home
8 the entire time because she was born in his home, given that
9 the registration noted that Chen-Liu’s brother had moved away
10 for a period of time. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80
11 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible
12 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief;
13 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be
14 compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks
15 omitted)).
16 Finally, Chen-Liu provided no evidence to support her claim
17 that she was injured during a scuffle with family planning
18 officials or that she was fined. She did not explain why she
19 could not have had family members corroborate those aspects of
20 her claim. See
id.
21 Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that
22 Chen-Liu failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating past
5
1 persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution under
2 the family planning policy. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii);
3 Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-98. That finding is dispositive
4 of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all
5 three forms of relief were based on Chen-Liu’s family planning
6 claim. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
7 2006).*
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED.
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
* Because the IJ denied CAT relief based on Chen-Liu’s failure
to satisfy the lower burden for asylum, Chen-Liu’s challenge
to the IJ’s denial of asylum necessarily challenged the IJ’s
denial of CAT relief. Thus, the BIA and the Government are
incorrect that Chen-Liu failed to exhaust her CAT claim.
6
