Li v. Holder, No. 08-70586 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a citizen of China of Korean and Chinese descent, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At issue was whether an IJ could use the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (i.e. false in one thing, false in everything) to find that material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim supported an adverse credibility determination on another claim. The court denied the petition for review, holding that Ninth Circuit precedent permitted the BIA to use an adverse credibility finding on one claim to support an adverse finding on another claim in a pre-REAL ID Act case.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum and related relief on adverse credibility grounds, holding that the Board and immigration judge may use the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (i.e. false in one thing, false in everything) to find that material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim in a pre-REAL ID Act case. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that petitioner’s testimony included material inconsistencies concerning her religious persecution claim, and that the Board therefore properly discredited all of petitioner’s testimony, including testimony concerning her family planning claim. Dissenting, Judge Christen wrote that the majority announces a new rule permitting adverse credibility findings to wash over from one asylum claim to another, regardless of whether inconsistencies that give rise to an adverse credibility finding “go to the heart of” the separate asylum claim, as required in pre-REAL ID Act cases.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.