Liu v. Blanche

── Liu v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General 23-7066 Liu v. Blanche BIA Poczter, IJ A206 583 084 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 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 4th day of May, two thousand twenty- six. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BI XI LIU, Petitioner, v. 23-7066 NAC TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* _____________________________________ *The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Law Office of Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Timothy G. Hayes, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Bi Xi Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bi Xi Liu, No. A 206 583 084 (B.I.A. Aug. 30, 2023), aff’g No. A 206 583 084 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 1, 2019). The IJ’s decision was largely based on his determination that Liu’s testimony was not credible. The IJ relied on inconsistencies between Liu’s statements during an asylum interview and his testimony before the IJ; Liu’s unresponsiveness to certain questions; and Liu’s failure to produce corroborating evidence for his claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 2 procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings, “including adverse credibility findings, under the substantial evidence standard.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the cont