Wen Liu v. Lynch
661 F. App'x 119
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioners Wen Liu and Cui Li Lin, Chinese nationals, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on alleged detention and beatings for practicing Christianity and a resulting miscarriage.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief after finding Petitioners not credible; the BIA affirmed that decision on August 20, 2015.
- The IJ found Petitioners’ testimony appeared memorized/scripted and noted hesitation, unresponsiveness, and inconsistencies between Liu’s and Lin’s testimony on key factual points (e.g., timing/location of pregnancy testing, medical visits, and who applied for a birth permit).
- Petitioners submitted unsworn letters and limited corroboration; the agency gave those little weight and found corroboration insufficient to rehabilitate testimony.
- The adverse credibility finding was dispositive because asylum, withholding, and CAT claims all relied on the same factual predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility determination | Liu/Lin argued their testimony was truthful about detention, beatings, and miscarriage | Govt argued IJ/BIA permissibly relied on demeanor and inconsistencies to find them not credible | Court upheld adverse credibility finding as supported by substantial evidence |
| Reliance on demeanor/scripted testimony | Petitioners contended testimony was accurate despite style | Govt argued testimony appeared memorized, hesitant, and inconsistent when probed | Court agreed IJ properly assessed demeanor and could rely on it for credibility |
| Weight of corroboration | Petitioners argued submitted letters/evidence supported their claims | Govt argued submitted evidence (unsworn letters, other docs) was insufficient to corroborate key facts | Court held corroboration was insufficient to overcome adverse credibility finding |
| Consequences for relief | Petitioners argued even if some testimony questioned, relief should still be granted | Govt argued all claims fail if core testimony is not credible | Court held denial of credibility dispositively foreclosed asylum, withholding, and CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed both IJ and BIA opinions for completeness)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for credibility findings and reliance on inconsistencies)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (IJ’s advantage in assessing credibility from direct testimony)
- Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2006) (consideration of inconsistent testimony in asylum context)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (requirement for corroboration to rehabilitate testimony)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (limited weight of unsworn letters)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (one credibility finding can be dispositive for multiple forms of relief)