Petitioner Yulan Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a November 9, 2010 order of the BIA affirming the December 8, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest denying Liu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yulan Liu, No. A088 380 450 (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 2010), aff’g No. A088 380 450 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 8, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.Here, the agency reasonably found that Liu was not credible because she could not answer questions about articles she claimed to have written for the Chinese Democracy Party (“CDP”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (providing that for asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “responsiveness” and inconsistencies in her statements without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim”). Although Liu argues that these articles were not submitted to demonstrate her knowledge, she testified before the IJ that she wrote them and thus the fact that she did not have knowledge of their contents indicated that she gave false or misleading testimony, and that false testimony is substantial evidence of a lack of credibility. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (relying on the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to find that once an IJ concludes that a document is false, he or she is “free to deem suspect other documents (and to disbelieve other testimony) that depend for probative weight upon [the applicant’s] veracity”).
