Yi Liu v. Sessions
690 F. App'x 721
2d Cir.2017Background
- Petitioners Yi Liu and Qi Zhao, Chinese nationals, petitioned for review of the BIA’s January 28, 2015 decision affirming an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- The IJ found Liu not credible based largely on inconsistencies between her testimony about two involuntary pregnancy terminations in China and her U.S. prenatal medical records.
- Liu testified both pregnancies in China were involuntarily terminated (one by medication, one forced miscarriage); U.S. prenatal records listed two pregnancies but recorded only one outcome as an “elective” abortion and did not note an involuntary or spontaneous abortion.
- The agency concluded the medical records failed to account for the alleged second involuntary pregnancy outcome and that this inconsistency bore on credibility.
- Corroborating evidence (a letter from Liu’s mother and a letter from a driver for a former employer) was given diminished weight because the mother was an interested witness unavailable for cross-examination and the employer letter lacked proof of employment.
- Because credibility was dispositive, the adverse credibility finding led to denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the Second Circuit denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency reasonably found Liu not credible based on record inconsistencies | Liu contended medical records did not contradict her testimony and any discrepancies were misunderstandings of medical terminology | Government argued the prenatal records conflicted with Liu’s testimony about involuntary terminations and that the second pregnancy outcome was unaccounted for | Court held the agency reasonably found Liu not credible based on the inconsistency between testimony and U.S. medical records |
| Whether corroboration cured credibility defects | Liu argued letters and other documents corroborated her account | Government argued the corroboration was weak (interested/unavailable witness; lack of employment proof) | Court held corroboration was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility |
| Whether adverse credibility determination bars all relief (asylum, withholding, CAT) | Liu argued she was entitled to relief despite credibility finding | Government argued lack of credible testimony defeats all relief claims | Court held adverse credibility finding was dispositive and supported denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief |
| Whether the agency applied correct legal standards for credibility and corroboration | Liu argued agency misapplied standards and overlooked explanations | Government maintained it applied totality-of-circumstances standard and properly weighed evidence | Court held the agency applied proper standards and its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- 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.) (totality-of-circumstances credibility standard; deference to IJ credibility findings)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.) (inconsistencies related to claim can support adverse credibility finding)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (agency discretion in weighing corroborative evidence)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (adverse credibility determination can be dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)