De Ye Qiu v. Lynch
662 F. App'x 89
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner De Ye Qiu, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; asylum was pretermitted as untimely and is not before the Court.
- The IJ denied withholding and CAT relief based on an adverse credibility finding; the BIA affirmed on September 1, 2015. Qiu petitioned for review to the Second Circuit.
- Central evidence included Qiu’s inconsistent testimony about his dates of departure from China and entry to the U.S., his signed asylum application (dated September 13, 2010), and a Beijing hotel receipt showing stays April 5–7, 2010.
- Qiu gave shifting testimony (variously stating departures in 2010, 2011, and 2012) and offered no convincing explanation for the contradictions when confronted at hearing.
- Additional inconsistency: a November 20, 2009 health certificate purportedly requested by a restaurant employer, but Qiu had testified he was fired from that restaurant in October 2009.
- The IJ relied on these inconsistencies under the REAL ID Act standard and found Qiu not credible; the Court reviewed both the IJ and BIA decisions and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Qiu's Argument | Lynch's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s adverse credibility finding was reasonable | Inconsistencies were minor and did not go to the heart of the claim | Under the REAL ID Act, the agency may base credibility on any inconsistency in the totality of circumstances | Court held the inconsistencies were substantial and a reasonable factfinder could make an adverse credibility ruling; credibility finding upheld |
| Whether conflicting dates/evidence (application, testimony, hotel receipt) required explanation | Qiu offered memory lapses and corrections but no coherent explanation | Agency argued the shifting statements and documentary mismatch supported disbelief | Court found Qiu’s explanations insufficient and relied on documentary evidence to support disbelief |
| Whether employment-document inconsistency undermined credibility | Qiu said he sought other work after firing | Agency noted the health certificate postdated his firing, creating a material inconsistency | Court accepted the agency’s view that the inconsistency supported the adverse credibility finding |
| Whether denial of credibility forecloses withholding of removal and CAT relief | Qiu implicitly argued relief should nonetheless be granted | Government argued both forms of relief depend on the same factual predicate and crediblity is dispositive | Court held the adverse credibility determination was dispositive and denied withholding and CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions)
- Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) (timeliness/pretermission of asylum not challenged here)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act permits adverse credibility findings based on any inconsistency under the totality of the circumstances)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant must do more than offer a plausible explanation for inconsistencies to compel crediting testimony)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding and CAT relief may fail where adverse credibility undermines the common factual predicate)