Xiaodun Li v. Sessions, 697 F. App'x 70

Petitioner Xiaodun Li, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after alleging fear of persecution if returned to China.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief on December 8, 2015; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on June 1, 2016.
At the merits hearing, Li denied ever applying for permission to return to China, but was confronted with a travel-authorization application he had submitted in September 2013 requesting 40 days in China and return to the U.S.
Li later offered explanations: the application was never granted or was lost due to non-payment; and that filial duty compelled the attempted return despite fear.
The IJ found Li’s statements and explanations not credible and made an adverse credibility determination, which the BIA adopted.
The Second Circuit reviewed the BIA and IJ opinions and denied Li’s petition for review, upholding the adverse credibility finding as supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence	Li argued the travel-authorization was not granted or was lost, and filial duty explained the inconsistency	Government pointed to Li’s inconsistent testimony and the existence of the travel application as undermining credibility	Court held the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence and upheld it
Whether the IJ was required to credit Li’s proffered explanations	Li contended explanations were plausible and should be credited	Government argued explanations were implausible and did not cure inconsistency	Court held the IJ need not credit merely plausible explanations (Majidi principle)
Whether a single inconsistency could defeat all forms of relief	Li argued the inconsistency was minor and not dispositive	Government argued a false statement can infect uncorroborated claims and is dispositive when claims share the same predicate	Court held a single false statement can undermine all relief when claims rest on same factual predicate
Whether summary denial was appropriate	N/A (Government moved for summary denial)	Government moved for summary denial as frivolous; Court treated motion as response to brief	Court declined to summarily deny as frivolous but denied the petition on the merits

Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for summary denial as frivolous)
United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary denial standard)
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (consider both IJ and BIA opinions)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act crediting inconsistencies under totality of circumstances)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for BIA decisions)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (agency not required to credit merely plausible explanations)
Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (single inconsistency can be dispositive)
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (single false statement may infect other uncorroborated evidence)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (same-predicate rule: credibility affects asylum, withholding, CAT claims)