Wen Cai Yang v. Sessions
689 F. App'x 676
2d Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Wen Cai Yang, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; BIA affirmed IJ denial and Yang petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
- IJ and BIA found Yang’s testimony and written statements contained material inconsistencies and omissions about police actions and his religious practice.
- Key factual disputes: whether Chinese police visited and ransacked his parents’ home in April 2011, whether his parents retained a police summons, and whether Yang read the Bible in China.
- Yang prepared his asylum application with counsel but omitted the April 2011 police-visit allegation from his written application; he offered explanations at hearing that the agency found unpersuasive.
- The agency relied on (1) inconsistencies/omissions between written application, credible fear interview, and hearing testimony, (2) evasive demeanor on cross-examination, and (3) lack of corroborating evidence (no parental letter about the visit).
- Because the adverse credibility finding was dispositive, the court affirmed denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of April 2011 police visit from written application permits adverse credibility finding | Omission excusable due to lack of education and confusion; had counsel prepare application | Omission is a material inconsistency/omission undermining credibility | Court upheld adverse credibility finding; omission reasonable basis for disbelief |
| Whether inconsistent statements about a police summons are material | Inconsistency minor or explainable | Inconsistency undermines basis for fear of future harm | Court held the inconsistency was material and supported adverse credibility |
| Whether contradiction between credible fear interview (never read Bible) and hearing testimony (read Bible periodically) fatally undermines religious-practice claim | CF interview unreliable; petitioner confused during interview | CF interview reliable and contradicts hearing testimony | Court found credible fear interview reliable; discrepancy supports adverse credibility |
| Whether corroboration and demeanor rehabilitate testimony | Letters from aunt and church friend suffice; petitioner was confused/responsive issues excused | Letters do not mention police visit; petitioner’s evasive pauses/demeanor justified agency skepticism | Court held corroboration insufficient and demeanor supported adverse credibility; denial of all relief affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for adverse credibility determinations)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner must do more than offer plausible explanation to overcome adverse credibility)
- Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715 (2d Cir. 2009) (criteria for reliability of credible fear interview)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility on common factual predicate disposes asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)