Xiaohong Li v. Lynch, 671 F. App'x 16

Petitioners Xiaohong Li and Weijun Du, Chinese nationals, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; an IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed.
Li’s asylum claim rested on a single alleged incident of persecution involving police detention and beatings of family members.
The IJ found material inconsistencies between Li’s testimony and her written application and other record evidence about whether family members were beaten and the extent of injuries.
Corroborating evidence submitted by Li was itself inconsistent with her testimony and did not rehabilitate credibility.
Li did not raise before the BIA the argument that the agency should have permitted her to submit additional corroboration; the court noted it was her burden to produce corroborating evidence initially.
The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions and denied the petition, concluding the adverse credibility finding was dispositive of all claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the agency erred in finding Li not credible	Li argued inconsistencies were explainable and corroboration could cure doubts	Government argued record shows material inconsistencies and corroboration was inconsistent	Court upheld adverse credibility finding — reasonable under totality of circumstances
Whether corroborating evidence rehabilitated Li's testimony	Li argued submitted evidence supported her account	Government argued corroboration contradicted Li’s testimony and was insufficient	Court held corroboration insufficient to rehabilitate credibility
Whether IJ/BIA should have allowed submission of additional evidence	Li contended she should have been allowed to supplement record	Government noted Li bore burden to produce evidence and failed to raise this before BIA	Court declined to consider; held issue not preserved and meritless on substance
Whether adverse credibility finding precludes asylum, withholding, and CAT relief	Li argued claims could still succeed despite credibility issues	Government argued all claims based on same factual predicate and depend on credibility	Court held adverse credibility finding dispositive; denied all relief

Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act credibility-review framework; totality of circumstances)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner must show reasonable factfinder compelled to credit explanation for inconsistencies)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (issues not raised before BIA generally not preserved)
Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2009) (alien bears burden to produce evidence without prompting)
Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (totality-of-circumstances credibility review)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility finding can be dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)