Ying Liu v. Sessions
696 F. App'x 10
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Ying Liu, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on religious persecution (distribution of Christian flyers) and a forced abortion under China’s family planning policy.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on January 28, 2016. Liu petitioned the Second Circuit for review.
- The agency found Liu not credible based on inconsistencies between her credible-fear interview, written application, and testimony about the flyers, who helped distribute them, and interactions with police.
- The agency also cited Liu’s demeanor difficulties answering questions and her failure to call corroborating witnesses (husband, brothers) to support religious-practice and abortion claims.
- The agency found Liu’s account of the forced abortion lacked detail; documentary evidence (an abortion certificate and father’s letter) was insufficient and inconsistent with her testimony.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ and BIA decisions, applied the REAL ID Act credibility framework, and denied the petition for review, concluding substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility finding, which was dispositive of all relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of asylum claim (religious persecution) | Liu argued discrepancies were minor or from memory lapse; credible-fear record unreliable | Government argued inconsistencies and demeanor justified adverse credibility | Court held inconsistencies, demeanor, and reliable credible-fear interview supported adverse credibility finding |
| Reliance on credible-fear interview | Liu contended the interview record was unreliable and shouldn’t be used | Government relied on interview as accurate contemporaneous statement | Court found interview sufficiently reliable and properly considered under REAL ID Act |
| Forced abortion claim corroboration | Liu argued certificate and father’s letter corroborated her abortion claim | Government argued lack of detail and unexplained possession of certificate undermined claim | Court held abortion claim lacked detail and reliable corroboration; adverse credibility extended to this claim |
| Relief for asylum, withholding, CAT | Liu sought all relief based on same factual predicates | Government argued adverse credibility defeats all forms of relief | Court held adverse credibility dispositive; denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing adverse credibility under REAL ID Act)
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir.) (review of IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (deference to IJ demeanor credibility findings)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (need for corroboration and weight of witness testimony)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (forced-abortion asylum claim legal framework)
- Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140 (2d Cir.) (corroboration and detail required for persecution claims)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (adverse credibility can be dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT when claims rest on same facts)