Chunwu Zhu v. Lynch
661 F. App'x 102
2d Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Chunwu Zhu, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after entering the United States.
- At a 2009 consular interview in the Dominican Republic, Zhu admitted he lied to obtain a transit visa (claimed six years’ residence and nail-salon ownership).
- In immigration proceedings, Zhu admitted the falsehood and offered that a smuggler instructed him to lie to get to the U.S.
- Zhu gave inconsistent statements about how long he lived in the Dominican Republic (more than one year, three years, six years).
- Zhu alleged past detention and beating by family-planning officials in China but did not produce the passport used when leaving China, preventing verification.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Zhu not credible based on the admitted lie, inconsistencies, and demeanor; the BIA affirmed. The Second Circuit denied review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence | Zhu argued his testimony was truthful overall and that lies were instructed by a smuggler, not indicative of asylum claim falsity | Government argued the admitted lie, inconsistencies, and demeanor justified disbelief of his entire claim | Held: Adverse credibility supported. The lie and inconsistencies undermined the claim. |
| Whether a single false statement can taint the rest of an applicant’s uncorroborated evidence | Zhu contended the consular lie was isolated and not probative of persecution claim | Government relied on precedent that a single falsehood can infect uncorroborated evidence | Held: A single falsehood may infect the rest of the claim; here it did. |
| Whether inconsistencies about Dominican Republic residence and missing passport affected verifiability | Zhu argued different duration statements were immaterial and passport absence was inadvertent | Government argued inconsistencies and lack of passport prevented verification of key events (e.g., presence in China at alleged abuse time) | Held: Inconsistencies and missing passport reasonably cast doubt on his timeline and credibility. |
| Whether demeanor during testimony supports credibility findings | Zhu maintained his testimony should stand despite cross-examination style | Government noted Zhu’s refusal to answer yes/no questions and non-responsive demeanor | Held: IJ’s demeanor assessment afforded deference and supported adverse credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed both IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act permits credibility determinations based on demeanor, plausibility, inconsistencies)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (single instance of false testimony can infect uncorroborated evidence)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (court may decline explanations that demonstrate willingness to lie for immigration benefits)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. DHS, 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (a statement to an official inconsistent with the asylum claim can support adverse credibility)
- Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2005) (deference to IJ’s demeanor assessments)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility determination can be dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)