Li Zhu Gao v. Lynch
675 F. App'x 37
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Li Zhu Gao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on fear of persecution for her Christian faith.
- Gao alleged past/expected persecution tied to underground church activity and her aunt’s detention.
- At hearing, Gao’s testimony conflicted about whether Chinese authorities knew her identity and whether police visited her parents’ home to warn her.
- The IJ denied relief, finding Gao not credible; the BIA affirmed that decision.
- Gao petitioned for review in the Second Circuit, challenging the adverse credibility finding and denial of all relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence | Gao argued her testimony and explanations were plausible and should be credited | Government argued inconsistencies and omissions about police knowledge and visits undermined credibility | Court held agency reasonably relied on material inconsistencies and omissions; adverse credibility finding upheld |
| Whether Gao’s explanations for inconsistencies compelled crediting her testimony | Gao argued she later explained omissions (parents told her late; not asked directly) | Government argued explanations were non-responsive, implausible, and insufficient under Majidi | Court held explanations not compelling; reasonable fact-finder need not credit them |
| Whether inconsistencies about alleged police visits were material | Gao minimized or changed descriptions of visits, arguing benign second visit | Government argued police interest is central to fear of future persecution | Court held inconsistencies were material because police interest bolstered future-harm claim; supported adverse finding |
| Whether denial of asylum foreclosed withholding and CAT relief | Gao argued even if asylum denied, other relief still warranted | Government argued all relief shared same factual predicate and credibility failure foreclosed all relief | Court held credibility finding dispositive for all forms of relief and denied petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act permits credibility findings based on inconsistencies without regard to whether they go to the heart of the claim)
- Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of both IJ and BIA decisions)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant must do more than offer a plausible explanation to compel crediting testimony)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (material inconsistency tied to example of persecution can support adverse credibility finding)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (same factual predicate means credibility finding dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)