Kun Ji v. Jefferson Sessions, 691 F. App'x 471

Petitioner Kun Ji sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on persecution/torture fears stemming from events in China.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Ji not credible based on inconsistencies in his testimony and evasive answers at hearing and earlier asylum interview statements.
Key inconsistencies included testimony about a hospital CT scan and how Ji learned of his wife’s abortion and concurrent hospital stays.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reviewed the IJ’s credibility determination for clear error and adopted the IJ’s reasoning.
Because the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was dispositive, the IJ and BIA denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for failure to meet the burden of proof.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ/BIA had substantial evidence to find Ji not credible	Ji argued his testimony was truthful and explanations for inconsistencies were reasonable	Government argued prior statements and evasive hearing testimony warranted adverse credibility finding	Court held substantial evidence supported adverse credibility finding
Whether IJ properly relied on earlier asylum interview statements	Ji argued hearing testimony should be credited over inconsistent prior statements	Government argued IJ permissibly considered prior statements to assess credibility	Court held IJ permissibly relied on earlier statements to evaluate credibility
Whether evasiveness justified adverse credibility finding	Ji contended explanations showed confusion, not deception	Government pointed to pattern of evasive answers that produced admissions when pressed	Court held evasiveness supported adverse credibility determination
Whether denial of credibility bars eligibility for asylum, withholding, CAT	Ji argued other record evidence could support relief even if testimony partly discredited	Government argued without credible testimony Ji could not meet burdens for any relief	Court held denial of credibility meant Ji failed to meet burdens for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (REAL ID Act standards and review scope)
Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (substantial evidence review and reliance on IJ reasoning)
Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2014) (BIA adoption of IJ opinion and review of IJ oral decision)
Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (examining IJ reasoning supporting BIA conclusions)
Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (requirement for specific and cogent reasons for adverse credibility)
He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2003) (adverse credibility standard precedent)
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (permissibility of relying on inconsistencies in prior statements)
Bingxu Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2014) (evasive responses can support adverse credibility)
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2014) (necessity of credible testimony for asylum burden)
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (asylum failure also bars withholding)
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2014) (CAT relief requires showing likelihood of torture independent of discredited testimony)