Xiangmei Li v. Sessions
693 F. App'x 81
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Xiangmei Li, a Chinese national, appealed the BIA’s affirmation of an IJ’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- Li claimed persecution for owning/using an illegal satellite television receiver; she testified a friend (Shun Hee) installed it at her request and her husband was uninvolved.
- Documentary evidence included a letter from Li’s husband stating his friend installed the receiver for him, that he knew it was illegal, and recounting threats and a fine payment to secure Li’s release from detention.
- The IJ found inconsistencies between Li’s testimony and her husband’s letter, noted omissions in the letter (a verbal police warning), and found Li’s account implausible and insufficiently corroborated.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination; the Second Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Li’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported | Li argued translation error/explanation of inconsistencies (husband’s letter read as “a friend”) and that omissions were innocuous | Agency argued inconsistencies, omissions, implausibility, and lack of corroboration justified adverse credibility | Held: Substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding; Li failed to compel crediting her explanations |
| Whether implausibility of targeting undermined asylum claim | Li said she alone was targeted because she was the primary TV watcher | Government said it was implausible police targeted only Li when husband and mother lived in same home | Held: IJ reasonably found Li’s story implausible |
| Whether failure to corroborate her testimony was fatal | Li relied on some documents but lacked statements from alleged installer and relied on conclusory evidence | Government stressed absence of meaningful corroboration and that submitted evidence was inadequate | Held: Lack of corroboration supported adverse credibility and denial of relief |
| Whether adverse credibility determination foreclosed all relief (asylum, withholding, CAT) | Li contended credibility rulings were erroneous and relief should be granted | Government maintained all relief depends on same factual predicate and credibility defeats all claims | Held: Because credibility determination dispositive, all forms of relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing IJ decisions as modified by the BIA)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (review of adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner must show a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit explanations for inconsistencies)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (absence of corroboration may bear on credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (same factual predicate principle: adverse credibility can defeat asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)