Yunfeng Xie v. Lynch
657 F. App'x 73
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Yunfeng Xie, a Chinese national, appealed the BIA’s October 6, 2015 decision affirming an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- Xie claimed persecution by Chinese authorities tied to a requirement to pay a recurring police protection fee and an arrest for which his wife paid a fine to secure his release.
- Central factual disputes included the specific dates for (a) when the protection fee was due each month, (b) when Xie’s wife paid the fine for his release, and (c) when Xie received medical treatment after his arrest.
- Documentary evidence in the record (a collection notice and a fine receipt) conflicted with Xie’s oral testimony.
- The IJ found Xie not credible based on multiple material inconsistencies and the BIA affirmed; the agency determined those inconsistencies undermined the persecution claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Xie’s testimony was credible under REAL ID Act standards | Xie maintained his testimony about the fee, fine payment, and treatment dates and attributed inconsistencies to confusion from cross-examination | Government argued documentary evidence contradicted Xie’s account and inconsistencies were material to his persecution claim | Court held agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence and reasonable under REAL ID Act |
| Whether documentary inconsistencies were material to asylum claim | Xie argued core facts (fine payment after arrest) were consistent despite date slips | Government argued specific dates were central to showing persecution sequence and corroboration failed | Court held date inconsistencies concerning pivotal events were material and undermined credibility |
| Whether IJ had to credit explanations of memory lapses/confusion | Xie asserted confusion and fading memory reasonably explained inconsistencies | Government asserted explanations were implausible given centrality of events and documentary conflict | Court held IJ reasonably rejected memory/confusion explanations and need not credit them |
| Whether adverse credibility determination barred withholding/CAT relief | Xie contended other relief should still be available absent credibility ruling | Government argued all claims rested on same factual predicate and thus failed if testimony disbelieved | Court held asylum, withholding, and CAT relief all denied because they depended on the same discredited facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing both IJ and BIA decisions)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (REAL ID Act credibility standards and deference to IJ credibility findings)
- Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.) (material inconsistency related to example of alleged persecution is substantial evidence)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (applicant must show a reasonable fact‑finder would be compelled to credit testimony)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (withholding and CAT relief fail if based on same discredited factual predicate)