Xiu Wen Zhu v. Lynch, 664 F. App'x 84

Petitioner Xiu Wen Zhu, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; IJ denied relief and BIA affirmed.
Asylum application was pretermitted as untimely (not filed within one year of arrival); no changed/extraordinary circumstances claimed on review.
The agency made an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies between Zhu and his "one-year witness," internal contradictions in the witness’s testimony, and omissions in a pastor’s letter.
Corroborating documents (letters from mother, friend, church member) were given minimal weight as interested, uncross‑examined witnesses.
The credibility ruling was reviewed for substantial evidence and was dispositive for both withholding of removal and CAT relief because those claims rested on the same factual predicate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over asylum timeliness	Zhu sought review of adverse credibility underlying the timeliness ruling	Government: asylum denial as untimely is not reviewable; no constitutional/legal question raised	Dismissed — court lacks jurisdiction to review timeliness denial; petitioner raised only factual credibility issues
Adverse credibility finding	Zhu argued inconsistencies (e.g., one-year witness) should not undermine other testimony; witness illness explained contradictions	Government: inconsistencies, internal contradictions, omissions, and weak corroboration support disbelief	Denied — substantial evidence supports adverse credibility under REAL ID Act standards
Weight of corroboration	Zhu argued corroborating letters and witness should rehabilitate credibility	Government: letters from interested, uncross‑examined witnesses entitled to minimal weight	Denied — agency reasonably afforded minimal weight; corroboration insufficient to rehabilitate testimony
Effect on withholding & CAT relief	Zhu contended even if some testimony false, other evidence supports relief	Government: credibility dispositive; same factual predicate for withholding/CAT; denial justified	Denied — credibility determination dispositive; withholding and CAT claims denied

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing IJ decision as modified by BIA)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (REAL ID Act credibility standard; deferential review)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (applicant must do more than offer plausible explanation for inconsistencies)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (false testimony or documents can infect other uncorroborated evidence)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (withholding and CAT claims based on same factual predicate are tied to credibility)
Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.) (issues not sufficiently argued are waived)