Liu v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A210 170 439

18-1902
Liu v. Barr
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A210 170 439
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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 2
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3
New York, on the 2
nd
day of January, two thousand twenty. 4
5
PRESENT: 6
GUIDO CALABRESI, 7
JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9
Circuit Judges. 10
_____________________________________ 11
12
YUPING LIU, 13
Petitioner, 14
15
v. 18-1902 16
NAC 17
WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 18
ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19
Respondent. 20
_____________________________________ 21
22
FOR PETITIONER: Raymond Lo, Esq., Jersey City, 23
NJ. 24
25
FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26
General; Terri J. Scadron, 27
Assistant Director; Leslie McKay, 28

2

Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 1
of Immigration Litigation, United 2
States Department of Justice, 3
Washington, DC. 4
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7
is DENIED. 8
Petitioner Yuping Liu, a native and citizen of the 9
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 15, 2018, 10
decision of the BIA affirming a June 22, 2017, decision of an 11
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liu’s application for 12
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yuping Liu, No. A 14
210 170 439 (B.I.A. Jun. 15, 2018), aff’g No. A 210 170 439 15
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 22, 2017). We assume the parties’ 16
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17
in this case. 18
We have reviewed the BIA and IJ’s decisions “for the sake 19
of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 20
F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the adverse 21
credibility determination for substantial evidence. See 8 22
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 23
67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the 24

3

circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 1
base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or 2
responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the inherent 3
plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account, the consistency 4
between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . 5
. . , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] 6
the consistency of such statements with other evidence of 7
record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, 8
inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s 9
claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. 10
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 11
determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 12
it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an 13
adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 14
F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d 15
at 76. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 16
determination that Liu was not credible as to her claim that 17
she was persecuted by Chinese authorities on account of her 18
Falun Gong practice. 19
The agency reasonably relied on an inconsistency between 20
Liu’s testimony, asylum interview, and personal statement 21
about the number of times she was beaten by Chinese 22

4

authorities. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). In her 1
application and at her asylum interview, she described being 2
beaten when she was first detained and interrogated, but she 3
did not mention other beatings. Moreover, despite being 4
asked at the interview to provide more details about her 5
detention, she added only that she was interrogated on the 6
ensuing days, not that she was beaten. In contrast, she 7
testified that she was beaten three times per day, each day 8
of her detention. This inconsistency, alone, is substantial 9
evidence for the adverse credibility determination because it 10
concerns the sole incident of past persecution that is the 11
heart of her claim. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland 12
Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (a material 13
inconsistency regarding the basis of an applicant’s asylum 14
claim is substantial evidence of adverse credibility). 15
The agency bolstered the adverse credibility 16
determination by pointing to a series of other 17
inconsistencies and implausible testimony. Liu has abandoned 18
any challenge to these grounds because she did not provide 19
any specific argument before the BIA or this Court. See 20
Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146–47 (2d Cir. 2008) 21
(explaining that waiver of specific credibility findings can 22

5

be “significant” where “findings could, by themselves, 1
support an adverse credibility determination.”). Nor did Liu 2
sufficiently challenge the agency’s corroboration findings, 3
as she does not identify any specific evidence that the IJ 4
should have credited or explain why other evidence was 5
unavailable. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 6
545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that party’s “single 7
conclusory sentence” of argument on claim was tantamount to 8
a waiver of that claim). Liu’s argument that the agency 9
ignored country conditions evidence concerning persecution of 10
Falun Gong practitioners is unsupported because the agency 11
acknowledged that Falun Gong practitioners are persecuted in 12
China and denied relief solely on credibility grounds. 13
Given Liu’s inconsistent descriptions of her alleged 14
persecution and her failure to challenge the other grounds 15
for the agency’s decision, the adverse credibility 16
determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 17
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The adverse credibility 18
determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of 19
removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief are 20
based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 21
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 22

6

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1
DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2
stays VACATED. 3
FOR THE COURT: 4
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 5
Clerk of Court 6