Xiubing Zhuang v. Lynch
661 F. App'x 122
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Xiubing Zhuang, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on fear of persecution for practicing Christianity in the U.S. after 2011.
- Zhuang relied primarily on a June 14, 2012 letter from his wife stating she was arrested in China in May 2012 for receiving religious materials sent by him and that police warned they had put him on a blacklist and would arrest, torture, and punish him if he returned.
- The wife’s letter mentioned being detained for ten days and stated "I did not expect that they would beat me up," but did not describe specific physical abuse; Zhuang’s later testimony included more graphic allegations (e.g., honey and bugs put on her).
- The IJ found Zhuang not credible, citing (1) inconsistent testimony about when and how long the wife attended an underground church (conflicting end dates 2012 vs. 2013) and (2) omission of the alleged honey/bugs mistreatment from Zhuang’s application and the wife’s and mother’s letters.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ. The Second Circuit dismissed review of the asylum-timeliness determination for lack of jurisdiction but retained review of the adverse credibility determination as it supported denial of withholding and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Zhuang's Argument | Lynch's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review asylum timeliness bar | Challenge to agency’s time-bar denial | Time-bar is factual/credibility based and not reviewable | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (agency timeliness ruling not reviewable) |
| Adverse credibility determination supporting withholding/CAT denial | Wife’s letter and Zhuang’s testimony are credible; omissions/ inconsistencies immaterial | Inconsistencies and omissions undermine credibility | Held: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding; denial of withholding/CAT upheld |
| Significance of omissions and inconsistencies | Omissions not required to include every persecution incident | Core omitted detail (mistreatment) and date conflict reasonably significant | Court found omissions and date inconsistency sufficient to support disbelief |
| Requirement to corroborate mailing receipts | Not raised as dispositive; Zhuang said receipts would be unavailable | IJ noted failure to seek post office receipts as undermining claim | Court did not overturn credibility finding; corroboration failure was a relevant factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (credibility findings based on factual determinations not reviewable in certain contexts)
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.) (limitations on judicial review of factual credibility determinations)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing credibility findings under the REAL ID/INA framework)
- Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233 (2d Cir.) (vacatur/remand appropriate where agency’s reasoning or factfinding is flawed)
- Pavlova v. INS, 441 F.3d 82 (2d Cir.) (applicants need not list every incident of persecution on applications)