Lizhi Qiu v. William Barr, 944 F.3d 837

Background

Petitioner Lizhi Qiu, a Chinese national, alleged that Chinese family-planning officials forced her to have an abortion in Inner Mongolia in September 2008 and feared future forced abortions if returned to China.
Qiu entered the U.S. as a student in August 2009 and applied for asylum in May 2010; she had an asylum interview in July 2010 and a merits hearing before an IJ in September 2015.
At the merits hearing Qiu testified in detail about the forced abortion, submitted a Proof of Diagnosis dated September 13, 2008 (initially unauthenticated), and medical notes referencing a 2008 abortion.
The IJ denied asylum based on an adverse credibility finding and insufficient corroboration; the BIA affirmed, later vacated for administrative error, and then again dismissed Qiu’s appeal.
The Ninth Circuit granted review, concluding the agency’s adverse-credibility and corroboration findings were not supported by substantial evidence and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Qiu's Argument	Barr's Argument	Held
Whether the IJ/BIA permissibly relied on an asylum officer’s Assessment to Refer (demeanor) to support adverse credibility	Asylum officer’s subjective credibility assessment is unreliable; IJ must make its own demeanor findings	Agency relied on interview behavior and Assessment to Refer to undermine Qiu’s credibility	Court: IJ/BIA erred—may not rely on asylum officer’s subjective credibility conclusions; such reliance is legally improper
Whether omissions/lack of specific details in asylum statement justified adverse credibility	Qiu provided month, year, location and more detailed testimony later; minor omissions are permissible and explainable	Omissions (dates/names, IUD removal) indicate evasiveness and lack of credibility	Court: Omissions were minor or adequately explained; insufficent to support adverse credibility
Whether purported inconsistencies about who requested referral to immigration court warranted disbelief	Qiu said she was confused, nervous, relied on interpreter, and did not specifically recall making the request	Assessment to Refer states Qiu requested referral; agency treated this as inconsistent with Qiu’s testimony	Court: The inconsistency was trivial or reasonably explained; too minor to support adverse credibility
Whether agency permissibly relied on lack of corroboration and BIA factfinding about the Proof of Diagnosis	Qiu produced a diagnostic note and later submitted authenticated version; she had no notice to produce husband or authenticate and couldn’t explain unavailability at hearing	Agency faulted Qiu for failing to call husband, failing to authenticate document, and BIA characterized document as undermining her claim	Court: Agency failed to give notice and opportunity to rebut/corroborate; BIA engaged in improper factfinding about the document; cannot rely on lack of corroboration to support adverse credibility

Key Cases Cited

Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for BIA rulings)
Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2005) (limits on using Assessment to Refer in credibility determinations)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility requires "specific, cogent" reasons and a rule of reason for minor discrepancies)
Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2014) (notice and opportunity to produce corroboration required before adverse credibility based on lack of corroboration)
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency must afford chance to explain absent corroboration)
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (uphold adverse credibility if at least one basis is supported by substantial evidence)
Ge v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2004) (speculation cannot support adverse credibility)
Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) (BIA commits legal error when it makes its own factual findings contrary to procedure)
Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process requires notice when absence of a witness may affect credibility)