Zhigang Yi v. Jefferson Sessions
705 F. App'x 660
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Zhigang Yi, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; his application was filed after May 11, 2005 and is governed by the REAL ID Act.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief based on an adverse credibility finding and inadequate corroboration; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, identifying parts of the IJ’s analysis as most significant.
- The IJ found Yi deliberately failed to disclose a prior U.S. visa application to an asylum officer; Yi said he had "forgotten" the prior application.
- The IJ treated that omission as deliberate deception and relied on it as a basis for an adverse credibility determination.
- Because the adverse credibility finding was dispositive, the IJ did not credit Yi’s testimony for asylum/withholding claims and the BIA affirmed; the court also reviewed CAT relief under the standard that remaining evidence must compel a finding of likely torture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yi’s credibility was properly rejected | Yi claimed he "forgot" prior visa application and presented testimony/evidence supporting fear of persecution | IJ/BIA argued the omission was deliberate deception and corroboration was inadequate | Credibility rejection upheld; one valid basis (lying about prior visa) is enough |
| Whether inadequate corroboration independently bars relief | Yi argued documentary gaps did not defeat his claims when testimony sufficient | Government argued lack of corroboration supports denial under REAL ID evidentiary scheme | Court did not reach independent corroboration issue because credibility finding alone sufficed |
| Whether denial of asylum/withholding was supported by substantial evidence | Yi argued record as whole showed eligibility | Government argued substantial evidence supports denial given adverse credibility | Denial of asylum and withholding affirmed under substantial-evidence review |
| Whether Yi is entitled to CAT relief despite credibility finding | Yi argued other record evidence shows likelihood of torture | Government argued lack of credible testimony and insufficient evidence to compel CAT relief | CAT claim denied—the remaining evidence did not compel finding of likely torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir.) (standard of review: substantial evidence)
- Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966 (9th Cir.) (review both BIA and key IJ analysis)
- Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.) (adverse credibility and corroboration principles)
- Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.) (one valid basis supports adverse credibility)
- Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir.) (lying to immigration authorities counts as substantial evidence for adverse credibility)
- Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.) (standard for reversing CAT denial when testimony is discredited)