Summary
Second Circuit denied petition for review of BIA and IJ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for Chinese petitioner. Adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence based on petitioner's rote demeanor, inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence regarding church attendance and marital status, and lack of reliable corroboration. Court held that demeanor findings and tangential inconsistencies may support adverse credibility determinations under the totality of circumstances, and that failure to provide corroborating evidence can prevent rehabilitation of impeached testimony. Petitioner's pattern or practice of persecution argument was waived for insufficient briefing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the agency's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.
Holdings
- Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on demeanor, inconsistencies, and lack of corroboration.
Key quotations
“We review adverse credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard and treat the agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).” (at 2)
““Considering the totality of the circumstances . . . a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(B)(iii).” (at 2-3)
““We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76.” (at 3)
“The IJ found that Jiang’s testimony appeared to be “the product of rote memorization” because he responded to the IJ’s questions by “reciting the events in an almost identical way” to his written application.” (at 3)
““We can be . . . more confident in our review of observations about an applicant’s demeanor where . . . they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent testimony.” Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006).” (at 4)
““petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements . . . he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80–81.” (at 5)
““An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).” (at 6)
“The adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).” (at 6-7)
Factual background
Petitioner Jingliang Jiang, a native and citizen of China, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on his Christian faith. The IJ found his testimony not credible, citing demeanor (rote memorization), inconsistencies between his testimony and a church letter regarding attendance frequency (testified every two weeks, letter showed roughly every three weeks), and a discrepancy in a household registration booklet listing him as single when he claimed to be married. He also failed to provide corroborating evidence, such as a letter from his aunt who introduced him to Christianity in China.
Procedural history
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision on December 14, 2018, and the IJ's decision was on November 17, 2017. The petitioner timely sought review in the Second Circuit.