Tao Zhang v. Sessions
706 F. App'x 46
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Tao Zhang, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief alleging detention, beatings, and home demolition by Chinese authorities after he challenged a property taking.
- The IJ denied relief based on an adverse credibility finding; the BIA affirmed, adopting the IJ’s reasoning. Zhang petitioned this Court for review.
- The IJ identified multiple inconsistencies in Zhang’s testimony and records: timing of his departure from China after the demolition, whether his family still lived at the demolished-home address in 2013, and basic pedigree facts (father’s employment, education level, marital status).
- Zhang offered explanations for the inconsistencies, but the agency found them insufficient to compel credibility credit.
- Because all requested forms of relief relied on the same factual claims the agency found not credible, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility determination | Zhang contended inconsistencies were explainable and should not defeat credibility | Government argued inconsistencies undermined Zhang’s account and pedigree facts | Court upheld adverse credibility finding (substantial evidence supports it) |
| Reliance on multiple collateral inconsistencies | Zhang argued discrepancies were collateral or minor | Government argued cumulative inconsistencies are consequential under REAL ID Act | Court accepted that cumulative effect justified adverse credibility ruling |
| Effect of credibility ruling on forms of relief | Zhang maintained he remained eligible for asylum, withholding, CAT despite inconsistencies | Government asserted denial of credibility defeats all relief tied to same facts | Court held adverse credibility dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief |
| Imputed political opinion claim | Zhang argued agency ignored an imputed political opinion basis | Government noted the imputed claim rests on same facts found noncredible | Court found the imputed- opinion claim also defeated by the adverse credibility ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing both IJ and BIA decisions when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act allows reliance on any inconsistency or omission; review for substantial evidence)
- Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2006) (cumulative effect of collateral discrepancies can be consequential)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioners must do more than offer plausible explanations to compel credibility credit)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (an adverse credibility finding can be dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)