Ali v. Lynch, 669 F. App'x 597

Petitioner Sokana Ali, a Congolese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; asylum was pretermitted as untimely and is not challenged on review.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, finding Ali’s testimony unreliable and not credible and citing numerous contradictions and omissions.
The IJ noted a lack of corroboration (e.g., missing roommate letter, gaps in mother’s letter) and applied corroboration standards in assessing Ali’s claim.
Ali claimed translation errors deprived him of due process; the BIA rejected this, finding no showing that material evidence was omitted due to translation errors.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal (and other relief) on March 19, 2013; Ali petitioned this Court for review.

Issue	Ali's Argument	Lynch's Argument	Held
Whether Ali proved entitlement to withholding of removal	Ali contended his testimony and evidence showed a clear probability of persecution warranting withholding	Government argued Ali’s testimony was unreliable, uncorroborated, and insufficient to meet the standard	Denied — IJ/BIA found testimony not credible or adequately corroborated, so withholding relief was properly denied
Whether Diallo corroboration rules required further explanation	Ali implied he met standards for relief and addressed corroboration generally	Government maintained IJ could deny relief where testimony is not credible and need not apply Diallo corroboration analysis to an incredible applicant	Held for Lynch — Diallo rule applies to otherwise credible applicants; IJ reasonably declined to rely on uncorroborated, unreliable testimony
Whether alleged translation errors violated due process	Ali claimed translation errors deprived him of a fair proceeding	Government argued Ali failed to identify material evidence omitted due to translation errors	Denied — BIA reasonably found no showing that translation errors caused omission of material evidence
Whether CAT relief was established	Ali asserted he met CAT standards (no detailed argument on appeal)	Government contended Ali did not meet CAT burden and did not press substantive CAT error	Not reached substantively — Ali failed to present specific CAT arguments on appeal, so court did not address eligibility

Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233 (2d Cir.) (court may consider IJ and BIA opinions together)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir.) (standards of review in immigration appeals)
Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir.) (corroboration rule for otherwise credible applicants)
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir.) (issues on appellate preservation of arguments)
Qin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140 (2d Cir.) (corroboration principles; later limited in part)
Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.) (in banc clarification limiting parts of prior corroboration holdings)
Balachova v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 374 (2d Cir.) (clarifies Diallo applies only to otherwise credible asylum applications)