Qing Hui Zheng v. Lynch, 664 F. App'x 87

Qing Hui Zheng, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after removal proceedings in the U.S. Immigration Court.
At initial filings and hearing Zheng stated his only U.S. entry was June 2008; later confronted with a 2000 removal order and fingerprints matching an individual named Sae‑Pai Sompong, Zheng admitted a prior entry.
Zheng offered explanations for the inconsistency (forgotten entry, pressure, later recollection) and claimed he had informed his attorney, and submitted medical records describing depression and anxiety.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Zheng not credible based on inconsistent statements/omission, demeanor, and lack of corroboration; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
The Second Circuit reviewed the BIA and IJ decisions and denied Zheng’s petition for review, holding the adverse credibility determination supported by substantial evidence and dispositive of all relief claims.

Issue	Zheng's Argument	Lynch's Argument	Held
Credibility of applicant’s testimony	Zheng argued his later admission of prior entry was an honest lapse or due to pressure and that he had told counsel earlier	Government relied on inconsistent statements and fingerprint evidence tying Zheng to an earlier removal order	Court upheld adverse credibility finding based on inconsistency and implausible explanations
Omission of prior entry into U.S.	Zheng said he forgot and then later remembered; also claimed he’d told his attorney	Government emphasized initial application and hearing statements listing only 2008 entry and later admission to 2000 entry	Inconsistency and conflicting explanations justified adverse credibility determination
Corroboration and medical evidence	Zheng claimed medical records supported memory issues that could explain omission	Government argued medical records showed depression/anxiety but not memory loss, and lacked corroboration for asylum claim	IJ reasonably found medical evidence did not corroborate claimed memory problems and absence of corroboration weighed against Zheng
Effect on asylum, withholding, CAT claims	Zheng maintained factual predicate established despite credibility issues	Government argued all relief depends on applicant’s credibility; no independent corroboration	Court held adverse credibility determination dispositive for all claims and denied relief

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court may review both BIA and IJ decisions for completeness)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (agency may base credibility on inconsistencies or omissions without requiring they go to the heart of the claim)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant must do more than offer a plausible explanation to compel credibility credit)
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (a single instance of false testimony can infect other uncorroborated evidence)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate testimony can bear on credibility)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (an adverse credibility finding can be dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)