Li v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25860
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Enying Li, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal (INA §241(b)(3)), and CAT relief based on two theories: religious persecution (participation in a home church) and forced abortion (China’s population-control enforcement).
- At the merits hearing Li testified about arrest, detention, and mistreatment at a November 7, 2004 raid of a home church; she also testified about a forced abortion after being reported while pregnant at her aunt’s house.
- The IJ identified material inconsistencies in Li’s testimony: conflicting timelines about when she obtained/apply for a passport and contradictory statements about the length of time she attended the home church versus why she had not been baptized.
- The IJ found Li not credible on the religious-persecution claim and denied all relief; the BIA affirmed and held that the adverse credibility finding on the religious claim tainted her forced-abortion claim (applying falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus).
- Li petitioned for review; the Ninth Circuit majority addressed whether an IJ/BIA may apply falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to extend an adverse credibility finding from one claim to another in a pre-REAL ID Act case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Li) | Defendant's Argument (Government/BIA/IJ) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus may be used to extend an adverse credibility finding from one asylum claim to another in a pre-REAL ID Act case | Li: An adverse credibility finding must "go to the heart" of each specific claim; inconsistencies in the religious claim do not bear on the forced-abortion claim, so the forced-abortion claim must be considered on its merits | BIA/IJ: The witness is the same for both claims; willful material falsity on one claim permits disbelief of the witness generally where testimony is the sole support for separate claims | Held: Yes — the Ninth Circuit permits use of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to discredit other claims when the applicant’s credibility is central and the claims rely on the same (unreliable) testimony; Li’s petition denied |
| Standard for adverse credibility pre-REAL ID Act: whether inconsistencies can support an adverse finding | Li: Pre-REAL ID Act precedent requires the IJ/BIA to identify specific, cogent reasons that "strike at the heart" of the particular claim | Government: Material, willful falsehoods that undermine the witness’s oath can justify disbelieving testimony across claims; the rule is consistent with circuit precedent | Held: The maxim is consistent with pre-REAL ID Act standards when inconsistencies are material and intentional, not minor memory lapses |
| Limits/exceptions to applying falsus in uno in immigration context | Li: Other circuits and precedent limit spillover where facts are independently provable or corroborated; adverse findings should not auto-defeat unrelated claims | Government: Where claims depend primarily on the applicant’s testimony and lack independent corroboration, credibility across claims is central | Held: Court adopts a permissive approach but cautions falsus in uno applies only when falsehoods are material and willful; not to be used for minor, innocent inconsistencies |
| Burden to consider alternative claims after adverse credibility finding | Li: IJ must still adjudicate each claim on its merits if inconsistencies do not affect that claim | Government: A credibility finding that undermines the applicant’s overall testimony can justify denial of all claims that rest on that testimony | Held: If the adverse credibility finding legitimately attacks the witness’s overall credibility and claims lack independent corroboration, the BIA/IJ may deny all claims without separate merits findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizes falsus in uno principle and discusses credibility issues in IJ proceedings)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (approves limited use of falsus in uno in immigration cases where evidence lacks independent corroboration)
- Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (pre-REAL ID Act standard: adverse credibility findings require specific, cogent reasons that "strike at the heart" of the claim)
- Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2005) (cautions that minor inconsistencies explainable by circumstances cannot support adverse credibility findings)
- Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1990) (inconsistencies that concern passports and capture orders involved the heart of asylum claims)
- Hattem v. United States, 283 F.2d 339 (9th Cir. 1960) (approves jury instruction permitting total disbelief where witness willfully lied as to a material fact)