Hongting Liu v. Loretta E. Lynch, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9766

Liu, a Chinese citizen, entered the U.S. on a student visa in May 2011 but did not attend the designated school; she filed for asylum ten months later claiming religious persecution for converting to Christianity and attending house churches in China.
She testified she was arrested in January 2011 at a house-church meeting, detained four days, beaten, electrocuted, slapped, and sexually touched; released after her parents paid a 5,000 yuan bond; treated at a hospital for a concussion.
At her removal hearing, the IJ noted several inconsistencies in Liu’s testimony (timing of visa/passport applications, whether she intended to come to the U.S. before arrest, whether she concealed conversion from parents) and found her testimony not credible; the IJ also discounted corroborating documents as recently procured or insufficiently detailed.
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ, finding the visa/passport timing discrepancies material and upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility inference and evidentiary conclusions about the corroboration.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the adverse credibility finding and the IJ/Board’s treatment of corroborating evidence and concluded substantial evidence did not support several bases for the adverse credibility determination.

Issue	Liu's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Validity of adverse credibility finding	IJ’s cited inconsistencies are minor or immaterial; credibility finding unsupported	Inconsistencies justify adverse credibility inference	Court: IJ’s five reasons largely unsupported; remand for reassessment because credibility finding flawed
Delay in filing asylum (10 months)	Filing within one-year statutory period is permissible; delay not evidence of fabrication	Delay suggests lack of urgency indicative of false claim	Court: Filing in tenth month is within statute; adverse inference for timing is arbitrary
Concealment of conversion from parents	Concealment plausible; friend’s testimony showed conversion wasn’t discussed with family	Inconsistency undermines credibility (would have told parents)	Court: IJ’s speculation impermissible; friend’s testimony contradicts IJ’s inference
Inconsistent testimony about visa/passport timing	Minor inconsistency; not central to persecution claim	Discrepancy is material and shows lack of candor	Court: Timing inconsistency not independently sufficient to discredit whole claim; must distinguish material vs. immaterial inconsistencies

Gjerazi v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 800 (7th Cir.) (dual motives for staying in U.S. can coexist)
Pavlova v. I.N.S., 441 F.3d 82 (2d Cir.) (delays within statutory year not necessarily adverse to credibility)
Jiang v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 992 (7th Cir.) (IJ may not rely on speculation to discredit asylum testimony)
Pramatarov v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 764 (7th Cir.) (inadmissible conjecture cannot support adverse credibility finding)
Krishnapillai v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.) (distinguish material vs. immaterial inconsistencies post-REAL ID Act)
Lin v. Holder, 630 F.3d 536 (7th Cir.) (upholding adverse credibility when inconsistency was central to claim)
Nadmid v. Holder, 784 F.3d 357 (7th Cir.) (testimony can suffice for asylum if credible and persuasive)
Raphael v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir.) (credibility determinations affect need for corroboration)
Chen v. Holder, 715 F.3d 207 (7th Cir.) (consider whether corroborating evidence was reasonably available)
Durgac v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 849 (7th Cir.) (corroboration analysis and availability of evidence)
Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir.) (arrest at religious gathering and mistreatment can support asylum)