Xun Hua Liang v. Sessions, 707 F. App'x 37

Petitioner Xun Hua Liang, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief claiming detention and mistreatment by Chinese officials because of his Catholic faith.
An Immigration Judge denied relief, finding Liang not credible; the BIA affirmed that decision on August 25, 2016.
The agency relied on inconsistencies in Liang’s testimony: where he was shocked with an electric baton, whether he was forced to write/fingerprint a letter to stop practicing religion, and what abuse he suffered when reporting to police.
Liang offered unsworn letters from his mother and friend, and an affidavit from his daughter (stipulated to testify consistently) as corroboration; the agency gave them limited weight because they were unsworn, authors unavailable for cross-examination, inconsistent, or lacked first-hand knowledge.
The agency concluded Liang’s adverse credibility determination defeated his asylum, withholding, and CAT claims because all three rested on the same factual predicate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Liang was credible about detention and abuse for his Catholicism	Liang asserted he was detained, shocked, forced to sign a letter, and mistreated by police	Government argued Liang’s statements contained material inconsistencies and lacked corroboration	Court upheld adverse credibility finding; substantial evidence supports it
Whether inconsistencies were material to credibility	Liang contended inconsistencies were minor or explainable	Government emphasized inconsistencies about key details (location of shock, forced letter, abuse on reporting)	Court found inconsistencies reasonable basis to disbelieve Liang absent compelling explanations
Whether corroborating evidence rehabilitated credibility	Liang relied on letters and daughter’s affidavit to corroborate his account	Government argued the evidence was unsworn, authors unavailable, inconsistent, or not first-hand	Court found corroboration insufficient to rehabilitate testimony
Whether adverse credibility disposes all relief claims	Liang argued relief should still be considered on merits	Government argued all claims depend on the same factual predicate and fail if credibility rejects Liang’s testimony	Court held adverse credibility dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court may review both IJ and BIA opinions)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for credibility determinations and review)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (claimant must do more than offer plausible explanation for inconsistencies)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (weight of unsworn letters and unavailable authors in corroboration analysis)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (same-factual-predicate rule: adverse credibility can dispose multiple claims)