Hui Li v. Sessions
699 F. App'x 32
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Hui Li, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief alleging he was detained and beaten by Chinese authorities for protesting his family’s land expropriation.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief on credibility grounds; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on June 10, 2016.
- Central credibility problems: inconsistent statements about length of detention (1 week at interview vs. 18 days at hearing), discrepancies over whether Li signed a land-expropriation agreement, which family member received compensation, and timing of medical care after injury.
- Li submitted unsworn letters from relatives and documents (a bail notice and land agreement) that the agency found unauthenticated and of limited value.
- The agency relied on the asylum interview transcript as reliable and on the cumulative inconsistencies and lack of independent corroboration to deny credibility and thus all relief.
Issues
| Issue | Li's Argument | Sessions' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ/BIA reasonably found Li not credible | Li claimed discrepancies were minor or due to recording error; interview may have been misrecorded | Agency argued inconsistencies and unreliable corroboration justified adverse credibility finding | Court upheld agency: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility determination |
| Reliability of asylum interview record | Li argued interview record could be inaccurate or not definitive | Govt argued transcript was verbatim/typewritten, showed comprehension, and elicited detail | Court agreed interview record was reliable for credibility purposes |
| Weight of corroborating evidence (letters, bail notice, agreement) | Li argued letters and documents corroborate his account | Agency viewed letters as from interested witnesses and documents as unauthenticated generic forms | Court upheld limited weight afforded to those materials |
| Whether adverse credibility forecloses all relief (asylum, withholding, CAT) | Li argued relief still warranted despite credibility issues | Govt argued all claims share same factual predicate so credibility failure defeats all | Court held adverse credibility dispositive; denied all relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing both IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for credibility determinations and totality of circumstances)
- Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624 (2d Cir. 2006) (reliability of asylum interview records for credibility)
- Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715 (2d Cir. 2009) (hallmarks of reliable interview records)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner must do more than offer plausible explanations to overturn adverse credibility)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (treatment of interested-witness letters)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (agency may rely on falsus in uno to discredit unauthenticated evidence)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (same factual predicate rule: credibility defeat disposes asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)