18-3691 Fu v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A201 296 873 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 13th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LIU CHUI FU, AKA PEI FU LIU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3691 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Wang, Esq., New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Claire L. 27 Workman, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Don G. Scroggin, Trial 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC.

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Liu Chui Fu, a native and citizen of the

10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 20,

11 2018, decision of the BIA affirming an October 10, 2017,

12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). In re Liu Chui Fu,

13 No. A 201 296 873 (B.I.A. Nov. 20, 2018), aff’g No. A 201 296

14 873 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 10, 2017). We assume the

15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

16 history.

17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See

18 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005).

19 The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.

20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,

, 76

21 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the

22 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may

23 base a credibility determination on . . . the inherent

2 1 plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account, the consistency

2 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral

3 statements . . . , [and] the consistency of such statements

4 with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether

5 an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart

6 of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.”

7

(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s

8 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the

9 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder

10 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin

11 v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei

12 Gao,

. Substantial evidence supports the

13 agency’s determination that Fu did not state a credible claim

14 of past persecution on account of his practice of

15 Christianity.

16 Fu has waived any challenge to the agency’s reliance on

17 his inconsistent statements about whether he was tortured or

18 only threatened during his five visits to police after release

19 from detention by failing to address that inconsistency in

20 his brief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,

, 541

21 n.1 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that claims not discussed in a

3 1 brief are waived). This inconsistency alone is substantial

2 evidence for the adverse credibility determination because

3 the alleged beatings were examples of the police abuse that

4 formed the basis of Fu’s claim of past persecution. See Xian

5 Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

(2d Cir.

6 2006) (holding that a “material inconsistency in an aspect of

7 [applicant’s] story that served as an example of the very

8 persecution from which he sought asylum . . . afforded

9 substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility

10 finding” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Likai

11 Gao v. Barr,

, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a

12 single inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing

13 that an IJ was compelled to find him credible. Multiple

14 inconsistencies would so preclude even more forcefully.”).

15 Thus, even absent the IJ’s implausibility finding regarding

16 Fu’s testimony about when his mother advised him to leave

17 China, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility

18 determination. See Gurung v. Barr,

(2d Cir.

19 2019) (noting that remand to the agency would be futile when

20 “the reviewing panel is confident that the agency would reach

21 the same result upon reconsideration cleansed of errors”).

4 1 The IJ also reasonably found that Fu’s documentary

2 evidence failed to rehabilitate his credibility. See 8

(b)(1)(B)(ii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales,

268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to

5 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility,

6 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an

7 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already

8 been called into question.”). Contrary to Fu’s argument

9 here, the IJ did not err in declining to credit a letter from

10 Fu’s friend in China. See Y.C. v. Holder,

,

11 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to agency on weight of

12 documentary evidence and upholding BIA’s decision not to

13 credit letter from applicant’s spouse in China); In re H-L-

14 H- & Z-Y-Z-,

(B.I.A. 2010) (finding

15 letters from applicant’s friends and family insufficient to

16 provide substantial support for alien’s claims because they

17 were from interested witnesses not subject to cross-

18 examination), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v.

19 Holder,

, 133–38 (2d Cir. 2012).

20 Given the inconsistency and lack of reliable

21 corroboration, the adverse credibility determination is

5 1 supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin,

. That determination is dispositive of asylum,

3 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms

4 of relief are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul

5 v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2006).

6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

7 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

8 stays VACATED.

9 FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 11 Clerk of Court

6