Xie Zhang-Zhou v. Sessions
710 F. App'x 477
| 2d Cir. | 2018Background
- Petitioner Xie Zhang-Zhou, a Chinese national, challenged the BIA’s March 8, 2016 decision affirming an IJ’s October 27, 2014 denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- Zhang-Zhou claimed past persecution in China for practicing the Yiguan Dao religion, including arrest and detention, and fled to the U.S. as a result.
- At his credible fear interview, Zhang-Zhou stated he had never been harmed, arrested, or detained in China, conflicting with his later application and hearing testimony.
- A letter from Zhang-Zhou’s wife described harassment by officials but omitted any mention of his religious practice, arrest, or detention; Zhang-Zhou offered explanations for the omission the IJ found unpersuasive.
- The IJ also relied on demeanor observations and found corroborating evidence (a stipulated witness who would testify about temple attendance) insufficient to rehabilitate credibility.
- The BIA affirmed; the Second Circuit reviewed both decisions and denied the petition for review, concluding substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility finding and denying all relief as derivative of that finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of asylum claim | Zhang-Zhou argued his testimony that he was arrested and harmed was credible and that lapses in the credible fear interview were due to memory/nervousness | Government argued inconsistencies between the credible fear interview and later statements undercut credibility | Court held adverse credibility finding was supported by inconsistencies and omissions; deference to IJ/BIA upheld |
| Omission in credible fear interview | Zhang-Zhou said he forgot or was nervous and thus did not recall arrest/detention | Government stressed the interview directly contradicted later claims and that forgetting undermined the claim given it motivated flight | Held the IJ reasonably rejected the explanation; omission was material and supported adverse finding |
| Omission from corroborating letter (wife) | Zhang-Zhou contended wife knew and thus did not repeat facts; letter was prepared for court | Government noted the wife’s letter failed to mention arrest/detention or religious practice despite purported knowledge and assistance | Held omission from corroborating letter reasonably weighed against Zhang-Zhou; IJ not compelled to accept his explanation |
| Sufficiency of corroboration to rehabilitate | Zhang-Zhou relied on witness testimony about U.S. temple attendance to corroborate practice | Government argued such testimony did not corroborate alleged past persecution in China or arrest/detention | Held corroboration insufficient to rehabilitate credibility; relief denied because all claims depended on discredited factual predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed both IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for immigration appeals)
- Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act credibility standard; inconsistencies may support adverse findings)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant must show reasonable factfinder compelled to credit testimony to overturn adverse credibility)
- Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715 (2d Cir. 2009) (agency may rely on credible fear interview inconsistencies)
- Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2005) (deference to demeanor-based credibility findings)
- Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2006) (demeanor findings stronger when tied to record inconsistencies)
- Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate affects credibility)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight of evidence lies largely within IJ’s discretion)
- Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (material inconsistency relating to core persecution claim supports adverse credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (denial of withholding/CAT relief when based on same discredited factual predicate)