Xiu Ying Weng v. Sessions, 693 F. App'x 79

Petitioner Xiu Ying Weng, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on persecution for Christian faith and violations of China’s family planning policy.
IJ denied relief in July 2014; BIA affirmed in December 2015. Weng petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
The agency found multiple credibility problems: inconsistencies between Weng’s and her sister’s testimony about U.S. church attendance, unexplained omissions about the sister’s two-month trip to China, and conflicting statements about how many times Weng was fined under the family planning policy.
Corroborating evidence (a church letter from China and letters from relatives/friends) was discounted: the church letter omitted the alleged police raid; personal letters were from witnesses not available for cross-examination.
The BIA concluded the cumulative discrepancies and weak corroboration rendered Weng not credible; because all claims rested on the same facts, denial of credibility defeated asylum, withholding, and CAT claims.

Issue	Weng's Argument	Sessions' Argument	Held
Whether the agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence	Weng argued her testimony and corroboration established her claims of religious persecution and family planning violations	The government argued the IJ/BIA reasonably relied on material inconsistencies and omissions and properly discounted corroboration	Denied review: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility ruling
Whether the church letter and other documentary evidence rehabilitated credibility	Weng asserted the church letter and family letters corroborated her claims	Respondent argued the church letter omitted key facts (police raid) and other letters lacked cross-examination value	Agency reasonably gave diminished weight to those documents; they failed to rehabilitate credibility
Whether inconsistencies about sister’s travel and church attendance were material	Weng contended discrepancies were minor and did not undermine core claims	Government maintained the contradictions bore on whether she was a practicing Christian and on truthfulness generally	Court found discrepancies material and probative of lack of candor
Whether adverse credibility forecloses all forms of relief (asylum, withholding, CAT)	Weng argued she met standards for at least some relief	Government argued all claims depend on the same factual predicate and fail if credibility is rejected	Court held adverse credibility dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT 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) (totality-of-circumstances test and deference to credibility findings)
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (material discrepancies can undermine asylum claims)
Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (credibility and corroboration standards)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (omissions in corroboration can be functionally equivalent to inconsistencies)
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (diminished weight for letters from unavailable witnesses)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility ruling can be dispositive of all forms of relief when claims share the same predicate)
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (review limits when factual determinations dispose of claims)