Dongkai Liu v. Sessions, 691 F. App'x 694

Dongkai Liu, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on persecution for attending an underground church; IJ denied relief and BIA affirmed.
Key alleged events: a November 2011 police phone warning to stop church attendance and July 2012 police visits to Liu’s home.
Liu testified inconsistently about where he received the police call (his home during lunch break vs. his parents’ home) and about his residence (factory-provided housing vs. privately owned home).
Corroborating evidence included letters from Liu’s wife and friends and a Public Security Bureau fine receipt; the letters omitted the alleged July 2012 police visits and the receipt was unauthenticated.
IJ found Liu evasive and made an adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies, omissions, demeanor; because all relief claims rested on the same facts, denial of asylum resolved withholding and CAT claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credibility of Liu’s testimony about police phone call and residence	Liu argued inconsistencies were explainable (e.g., would inherit parents’ home; never claimed living in factory housing after firing)	Government argued testimony contained material inconsistencies and omissions undermining credibility	Court upheld adverse credibility finding; inconsistencies not compelled to be credited
Weight of corroborating evidence (letters, fine receipt)	Liu argued letters and receipt corroborate claims	Government argued letters were from interested witnesses and receipt unauthenticated	Court accepted agency’s diminished weight to those documents; corroboration insufficient
Demeanor finding validity	Liu contended lack of on-the-record contemporaneous notes of demeanor undermined finding	Government relied on IJ’s observation of evasiveness supported by inconsistent testimony	Court deferred to IJ’s demeanor finding as supported by specific inconsistencies
Effect of adverse credibility on all relief claims	Liu argued merits of claims nonetheless should allow relief	Government argued all relief depended on same factual predicate undermined by lack of credibility	Court held adverse credibility determination resolved asylum, withholding, and CAT claims; petition denied

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing both IJ and BIA opinions for completeness)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act standard for credibility and deference to IJ findings)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner must show reasonable fact-finder compelled to credit explanation for inconsistencies)
Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2006) (deference to demeanor findings when supported by specific examples)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate bears on credibility)
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (deference to agency’s assessment of documentary evidence weight)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility on asylum claim resolves related withholding and CAT claims)
Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012) (discussing weight to documents from interested witnesses)