Wei tTo Liu v. U.S. Attorney General
688 F. App'x 844
11th Cir.2017Background
- Liu, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on religious persecution after distributing Christian flyers, being arrested and beaten in 2013, hiding, and later fleeing to the U.S.
- He underwent a credible fear interview in Dec. 2013 and filed an asylum application in Aug. 2014; he submitted arrest/detention documents, bail receipt, letters from acquaintances, country-condition reports, and U.S. church evidence.
- At his March 2015 hearing Liu testified consistently with prior statements; on cross-examination he revealed his brother had also distributed flyers, was later jailed in China, and subsequently came to the U.S. and sought asylum.
- The IJ found Liu’s testimony “for the most part” consistent but made an adverse credibility finding based primarily on Liu’s late disclosure about his brother; the IJ discounted corroborating documents for failing to mention the brother.
- The BIA affirmed, concluding the omission undermined Liu’s credibility and the written corroboration, and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; Liu petitioned for review in the Eleventh Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Liu) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ/BIA’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence | Liu: His testimony was detailed, internally consistent, corroborated by documents, and the late mention of his brother does not undermine credibility | Gov: Failure to mention brother until cross-examination was a material omission that justified disbelief and discounted corroboration | Court: Reversed — adverse credibility finding unsupported; predicated on speculation and misreading of record |
| Whether corroborating documentary evidence could be rejected because it omitted mention of the brother | Liu: Documents independently corroborate his account and lack of mention of brother does not negate their probative value | Gov: Omissions in supporting letters undermine their reliability and corroboration | Court: Reversed — IJ/BIA erred to give no weight to corroboration absent evidence that declarants knew of brother’s circumstances |
| Whether omission about brother was material and known to Liu at earlier stages | Liu: No evidence he knew of brother’s arrest/flight at credible fear or application stages; he did mention brother lived in same town | Gov: Implies brother’s arrest/flight occurred earlier and was material to credibility | Court: Reversed — assumptions were speculative; record doesn't show Liu knew earlier or that brother’s story was materially overlapping |
| Whether denial of asylum precludes withholding/CAT relief | Liu: With credible testimony and corroboration, he may meet higher standards; adverse credibility flawed so downstream denials unsound | Gov: Adverse credibility supports denial of all relief | Court: Reversed/remanded — because adverse credibility and discounting of corroboration were unsupported, denial of all relief cannot stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayala v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (review when BIA adopts IJ findings)
- Forgue v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (documentary corroboration must be considered even if credibility adverse)
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (credibility standards and when testimony alone can suffice)
- Tan v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard for withholding of removal)