Jian Liang v. Garland
10 F.4th 106
2d Cir.2021Background
- Liang, a Chinese national and Christian, entered the U.S. illegally in Jan 2015 and sought asylum, withholding, and CAT relief based on religious persecution.
- He reported arrests and police searches in Sept 2014; at a January 2015 credible-fear interview he said his name was on a government "blacklist."
- Liang’s I-589 written statement and his father’s corroborating letter mentioned the Sept 2014 search but did not mention any October 2014 police visit or that police told the father Liang was on a national blacklist.
- At the August 2017 hearing Liang first testified on cross-examination that police returned in Oct 2014 and told his father he was on a blacklist, and that a friend also knew he was blacklisted; those witnesses’ letters omitted those facts.
- The IJ found Liang not credible based on the late, material omissions and lack of corroboration, denied relief; the BIA affirmed. The Second Circuit held substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility finding and denied the petition, also finding no established pattern or practice of persecution in Fujian.
Issues
| Issue | Liang's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility based on omission about how Liang knew he was on a blacklist | Omission is less probative; Liang had mentioned the blacklist earlier (credible-fear interview) | Omission was material, would reasonably be expected to be disclosed earlier, and witnesses omitted it | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility (omission was material and undermined corroboration) |
| Entitlement to asylum or withholding based on past persecution / well-founded fear | Liang argued his testimony proved past persecution and a presumption of future persecution | Government argued adverse credibility tainted key testimony and country evidence did not show Fujian-specific risk or nationwide pattern | Denied: credibility ruling precludes proof of past persecution; no independent evidence of individual or pattern risk in Fujian; asylum/withholding denied |
| Duty to continue proceedings to allow corroboration of new testimony | Liang argued IJ should have continued to obtain corroboration | Government: IJ had discretion and no obligation to continue where omission suggested fabrication | Held: No obligation to continue; IJ reasonably relied on existing record and adverse credibility finding |
| Application of Hong Fei Gao limits on basing adverse credibility on omissions | Liang relied on rule that omissions are generally less probative and must be evaluated in context | Government: REAL ID and precedent allow adverse findings from omissions that are material and expected to be disclosed | Held: Court applied Hong Fei Gao — omissions can support adverse credibility when they concern facts a credible applicant would have disclosed; here omission was central and justified the finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) (omissions generally less probative but can support adverse credibility when applicant should have disclosed the facts)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for adverse credibility and REAL ID Act effects)
- Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 2018) (IJ discretion on corroboration and continuances)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (effect of adverse credibility on proof of past persecution and independent predicates for future fear)
- Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2010) (distinguishing asylum and withholding standards; presumption from past persecution)
- Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2020) (adverse credibility effect on asylum/withholding burden)