Ning Wang v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 299

Ning Wang, a Chinese citizen, entered the U.S. on a student visa in 2010, did not attend school, and applied for asylum in October 2011 claiming persecution for attending unsanctioned Christian gatherings in China.
Wang testified to being beaten in a 2009 police raid, arrested, detained and beaten in 2010, and treated at medical facilities; he submitted medical records and letters from family and friends as corroboration.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Wang not credible based on perceived inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary evidence and on lack of corroboration; the IJ also found the asylum application frivolous, concluding documents were fabricated.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed both the adverse credibility finding and the frivolousness determination, accepting that Wang knowingly misrepresented his attendance at underground gatherings and mistreatment by authorities.
The court reviewed Wang’s petition for review, concluding substantial evidence supports denial of asylum/withholding/CAT relief based on adverse credibility, but the record does not support the IJ’s separate finding that Wang deliberately fabricated material elements of his claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wang’s testimony was credible	Wang: inconsistencies were minor, explained by fuller hearing testimony, and he submitted corroborating documents	DHS: inconsistencies and lack of persuasive corroboration support adverse credibility	Court: Adverse credibility finding supported by substantial evidence; relief denied
Whether documentary discrepancies amounted to deliberate fabrication	Wang: later-submitted documents do not prove deliberate fabrication; discrepancies were explainable or minor	DHS: discrepancies and failure to corroborate support finding of fabrication	Court: Insufficient proof of deliberate fabrication; frivolousness finding unsupported
Whether an adverse credibility finding can be converted into a frivolousness finding	Wang: IJ improperly transformed credibility doubts into a frivolousness bar without clear evidence of intent to deceive	DHS: adverse credibility and documentary conflicts justify the frivolousness determination	Court: Adverse credibility alone is insufficient; frivolousness requires cogent, convincing evidence of deliberate fabrication
Appropriate remedy for erroneous frivolousness finding	Wang: a frivolousness bar permanently denies benefits and requires reversal if unsupported	DHS: (implicit) BIA/IJ decision should stand	Court: Denies relief on merits but grants petition to vacate the frivolousness finding

Tawuo v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2015) (adverse credibility may be supported by non-trivial inconsistencies)
Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2007) (minor memory lapses should not be overly weighted)
Albu v. Holder, 761 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2014) (definition and standard for frivolous asylum applications under regulation)
Siddique v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2008) (upholding frivolousness where petitioner admitted to fabrications)
Ignatova v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 2005) (frivolousness upheld where hospital identified records as fraudulent)
Selami v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2005) (documents were clear forgeries; frivolousness upheld)
Barreto-Claro v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 275 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2001) (frivolousness where alien admitted lies)
Yuanliang Liu v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 455 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (error to convert ordinary adverse credibility decision into frivolousness finding)
Scheerer v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 445 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2006) (warning against transforming credibility findings into frivolousness conclusions)