Guowei Li v. Sessions
689 F. App'x 84
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Guowei Li, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after alleging home demolition, arrest, and beating in 2007.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief on credibility grounds; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on Dec. 17, 2015.
- Li appealed to the Second Circuit challenging the adverse credibility determination and insufficiency of corroboration.
- The IJ found a marked change in Li’s demeanor and responsiveness between direct and cross-examination.
- A letter from Li’s father omitted the 2007 demolition, arrest, and beating that Li had described and listed on his asylum application.
- Li offered no medical or independent documentary corroboration for the 2007 injuries; the IJ found his explanations inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence | Li argued his testimony and submitted letter were credible and sufficient | Government argued demeanor change, omissions, and lack of corroboration justified disbelief | Court held the adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed denial of relief |
| Whether omission in a third-party letter may support adverse credibility | Li argued his father’s omission was not a valid basis to discredit him | Gov’t argued third-party omissions can bear on credibility | Court held omissions by a third party may support an adverse credibility determination |
| Whether corroborating evidence was required or available | Li argued corroboration was unavailable and unnecessary given his testimony | Gov’t argued Li failed to provide available corroboration (e.g., hospital records) | Court held Li failed to corroborate and was not excused from doing so; absence supported disbelief |
| Whether credibility ruling was dispositive of all claims (asylum, withholding, CAT) | Li argued other relief should still be considered | Gov’t argued credibility defeat disposes all claims | Court held credibility determination was dispositive and denied all relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir.) (reviewing both BIA and IJ for completeness)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing adverse credibility findings)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (deference to fact-finders on demeanor-based credibility assessments)
- Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386 F.3d 66 (2d Cir.) (demeanor and credibility observations)
- Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (supporting specific examples for demeanor findings)
- Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.) (a single material inconsistency or omission can support adverse credibility)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (adverse credibility determination can be dispositive of all forms of relief)