Liu v. Barr


FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 5, 2019 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court JIAEN LIU, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9500 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General,* Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT** _________________________________ Before EID, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Jiaen Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision that dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) removal order. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny review. * In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, William P. Barr is substituted for Matthew G. Whitaker as the respondent in this action. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. BACKGROUND Liu entered the United States unlawfully in September 2016. The Department of Homeland Security detained him and commenced removal proceedings. Liu appeared before an IJ, conceded removablility, and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He testified he could not return to China because he is a Christian and practices his religion outside the state-sponsored church. He fears police would arrest him, as they did in January 2016, when they broke up an unauthorized worship service at his work dormitory. During that incident, a police officer kicked him, causing him to fall and “scrape” his knee. Admin. R. at 166. Further, police detained him for fifteen days, “frequently” yelled at him for being a “cult follower,” and beat him with a baton, id. at 136, but the duration of the beatings was “pretty short,” id. at 135, and Liu suffered only “surface” wounds requiring no medical attention, id. at 166. Police released Liu after his mother paid bail. A month later, while Liu was attending a friend’s wedding, police went to his home and asked Liu’s mother where he was. Liu learned that police were looking for him, so he hid at a relative’s house until leaving China in September. He flew to Mexico, walked into the United States, and was detained. The IJ denied Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ found that Liu was not a credible witness and concluded that his application nevertheless failed on the merits. 2 The BIA affirmed on both grounds. Regarding the merits,1 the BIA held that Liu’s mistreatment failed to rise to the level of persecution, and that his fear of persecution if removed to China was not ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals