Li Guo Tian v. Sessions
686 F. App'x 45
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Li Guo Tian, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after alleged forced abortions and related beatings/detention involving Chinese family planning officials.
- The IJ denied relief based on adverse credibility findings; the BIA affirmed that decision on December 10, 2015. Tian petitioned for review in this Court.
- Central factual dispute: Tian’s written asylum application stated his wife was seized at a relative’s home and returned to their village while Tian was spotted and briefly beaten when rushing home; at hearing Tian testified both spouses were at home and taken to the hospital where his wife underwent a forced abortion and he was beaten and detained for two days.
- The IJ (as affirmed by the BIA) found the inconsistency about the location/timing of the wife’s seizure and Tian’s beating went to the heart of his persecution claim and supported an adverse credibility determination.
- The IJ also discounted a family-planning-committee document Tian submitted because it was unsigned, unauthenticated, and apparently obtained for litigation; the BIA found these factors supported giving it diminished weight.
- The Second Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied the petition for review, upholding the agency’s adverse credibility determination and evidentiary assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Tian's Argument | Sessions' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ/BIA properly made an adverse credibility determination based on inconsistent accounts of when/where his wife was seized and when he was beaten/detained | Tian argued inconsistencies were explainable and he was not given a fair chance to clarify | Government argued the inconsistency was material to persecution and supported an adverse credibility finding | Court held substantial evidence supports adverse credibility; inconsistencies went to the heart of the claim |
| Whether the IJ/BIA erred by refusing to credit Tian’s explanations for inconsistencies | Tian said his explanations (e.g., captured en route) resolved discrepancies | Government argued explanations were not compelling and muddled the timeline | Court held explanations were not persuasive; agency need not credit merely plausible explanations |
| Whether the family-planning-committee document should have been credited despite lacking formal authentication | Tian argued documents can be authenticated in ways other than agency regulation and should be credited | Government argued document was unauthenticated, unsigned, obtained for litigation, and thus unreliable | Court held BIA permissibly discounted the document given lack of authentication, signature, and probative value; even if credited it would not fix core inconsistency |
| Whether any single inconsistency or unauthenticated evidence can support denial of asylum/withholding/CAT relief | Tian contended single discrepancies shouldn’t defeat his claim | Government pointed to precedent allowing single material inconsistencies to support denial | Court held precedent allows a single central inconsistency to support adverse credibility under substantial-evidence review |
Key Cases Cited
- Lianping Li v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing IJ decision as modified by BIA)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act allows adverse credibility findings based on inconsistencies)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (single inconsistency that goes to the heart of the claim can support adverse credibility)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (factfinder may draw inferences from direct and circumstantial evidence; false documents/testimony may infect other evidence)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (agency not required to credit merely plausible explanations)
- Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (IJ erred by rigidly requiring regulatory authentication for documents)
- Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) (agency has flexibility to determine document authenticity from totality of evidence)
- Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012) (remand of BIA decision on other grounds; discussed authentication of documents)
- Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007) (evidence of purely economic or family-planning related acts, such as consenting abortions, does not alone establish asylum basis)