Zong Yi Wang v. Sessions
706 F. App'x 8
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Zong Yi Wang, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after alleging persecution related to his Christian practice.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief based on an adverse credibility finding; the BIA affirmed on July 6, 2016. Wang petitioned for review in this Court.
- The IJ cited petitioner’s long pauses, nonresponsive answers, and specific inconsistencies during direct and cross-examination (e.g., age of his son at the time of arrest).
- Wang initially testified his son was "almost one year old" at arrest, later acknowledging the son was born four days before the arrest; he explained memory lapses and nervousness when confronted.
- The IJ and BIA found the demeanor-based observations and inconsistencies sufficient to conclude Wang was not credible; that adverse credibility determination was dispositive of all claims because they shared the same factual predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Wang's Argument | Sessions' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence | Wang argued his testimony lapses were innocent (nervousness) and he offered a cultural explanation about reckoning newborn age | Government argued IJ’s demeanor findings and inconsistent statements undermined credibility; cultural explanation not raised below | Court held substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding based on demeanor, responsiveness, and inconsistencies |
| Whether Wang exhausted and proved new cultural explanation for inconsistency | Wang argued Chinese practice counts newborn as one year old (raised on appeal to this Court) | Government argued explanation was not raised before IJ/BIA and lacks supporting evidence | Court held explanation was unexhausted and unsubstantiated, so it cannot overcome credibility finding |
| Whether minor inconsistencies compelled a finding of credibility | Wang contended mistakes were minor and excusable | Government maintained inconsistencies bore on whether events occurred as testified | Court held petitioner must do more than offer plausible explanations; inconsistencies and demeanor did not compel crediting testimony |
| Whether adverse credibility determination foreclosed asylum, withholding, and CAT relief | Wang argued relief should still be granted despite credibility issues | Government maintained all claims share same factual predicate and rely on credibility | Court held adverse credibility determination was dispositive; petition for review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing both IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for credibility determinations and deference)
- Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2005) (deference to demeanor-based credibility findings)
- Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2006) (confidence in demeanor findings supported by specific examples)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner must do more than offer plausible explanations for inconsistencies)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility can be dispositive when claims share factual predicate)
- Foster v. U.S. INS, 376 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2004) (exhaustion requirement for arguments before the agency)
- INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 (1984) (attorney statements in briefs are not evidence)