Liu v. Sessions

16-59 Liu v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A205 614 781 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 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of February, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JIA LIU, Petitioner, v. 16-59 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Brian P. Fredericks, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; Anthony J. Messuri, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Jia Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 9, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming an April 8, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jia Liu, No. A 205 614 781 (B.I.A. Dec. 9, 2015), aff’g No. A 205 614 781 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 8, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513-14 (2d Cir. 2009); Cao v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 149, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2005). The agency primarily denied relief on credibility grounds. The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on “the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 2 statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Here, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. Liu’s omission of his ...

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