Li v. Eric Holder, Jr.

OPINION

Enying Li was denied asylum, withholding of removal pursuant to § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and withholding of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on two separate claims of past persecution because the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found her testimony regarding one of her *1162claims not credible. We must now decide whether an.IJ may use the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (ie. 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. We hold the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus may be used by an immigration judge, and we deny Li’s petition.

I. Background

Li, a citizen of China of Korean and Chinese descent, entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. She filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and withholding of removal under CAT, claiming she had suffered religious persecution and had been subject to .China’s restrictive population control measures. Subsequently, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service commenced removal proceedings against Li by filing a Notice to Appear and charging her with removability for being present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled.

A.Forced Abortion Claim

At the merits hearing, Li testified that she found out she was pregpant with her second child one month after her husband’s death. When asked about China’s one-child policy, Li testified that Korean-Chinese persons like herself were permitted to have two children. But she testified that her employer would not allow her to have the child because she did not have a-husband. Li testified that she then went to stay at her aunt’s house. While there, someone noticed she was visibly pregnant and reported her to a women’s social organization. After this report, Li testified she was forced to have an abortion.

B.Religious Persecution Claim

After Li’s husband passed away, a friend recommended that she go to church. Li testified that she attended a Christian church for the first time on April 6, 2003, and at least twice a week after that date. She stated that it was a home church service and that the church attendees kept changing the location because the government was searching for home church services. On November 7, 2004, a service was held at Li’s house. Li testified that one of the deacons was giving a sermon when there was a knock on the door. Li went to the door and between four and six police officers raided her home.

The police arrested Li and the other home church attendants and took them to the police station. She testified that she was detained for about ten days, during which time she was interrogated and hit with an “electric stick.” She was released after she paid a fine of 5,000 yuan, but she was still required to report to the police station once a week. Although Li testified that she had attended the home church from April 6, 2003, until November 7, 2004, a period of nineteen months, she later stated on cross-examination that she had not been baptized because people had to practice in the home church for six to twelve months before they could be baptized.

C.Passport Inconsistency

Li testified that she uséd a Chinese passport to leave China. When asked when she had obtained the Chinese passport, Li stated, “On March the 18th [of 2005]. I think — I think that’s December 18th. It’s been a long time.” She was then asked by her counsel how she could have received a passport in December 2005 when she left China in February 2005. Li stated that she applied for the passport “way before.” Li stated that *1163while she was pregnant at her aunt’s house, her sister had told her that, if Li had a passport, she could leave China. Later in the hearing, she was asked, “[Y]ou obtained your passport in December 2003. Is that correct?” Li replied, “Yes, I received my passport at that time.” On cross-examination, she also testified that she applied for her passport because her husband had passed away and she had trouble with the police as a result of attending home church. The IJ asked, “But ma'am, you didn’t have any trouble with the home church until November 2004. Correct?” Li then stated, “that has nothing to do with this passport.”

D. IJ and BIA Decisions

The IJ denied Li’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. He found that she had not provided credible testimony in two ways: (1) she provided contradictory testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the receipt of her passport, and (2) she testified that she was not baptized in China because she was a new church member and had not participated in church services for the requisite six to twelve months, but she also testified that she had attended for a period of nineteen months (from April 6, 2003, until her arrest on November 7, 2004). The IJ held that “[t]he testimony goes to the heart of her claim and causes the Court to doubt her credibility regarding her participation in Chinese home church activities.” The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief, found that the discrepancies went to the heart of Li’s religion-based asylum claim, and held: “The respondent’s lack of credibility as to these issues also taints her credibility with respect to her forced-abortion claim.”

II. Standard of Review

The court’s review of a BIA’s determination is highly deferential. Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006). This court reviews BIA credibility findings for substantial evidence and reverses “only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2006). Under this pre-REAL ID Act standard of review, “the IJ or BIA must identify specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility finding” and the reasons must “strike at the heart of the claim.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)

III. Analysis

Li argues that it was impermissible for the BIA to find her entire testimony not credible because it found her testimony regarding her religious persecution claim not credible.1 We disagree. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a hoary maxim which allows a fact-finder to disbelieve a witness’s entire testimony if the witness makes a material and conscious falsehood in one aspect of his testimony. Cvitkovic v. United States, 41 F.2d 682, 684 (9th Cir.1930). The maxim is based on the logic that a person may mistakenly testify wrongly and still be believable, but if a person testifies falsely, willfully, and materially on one matter, then his “oath” or word is not “worth anything” and he is likely to be lying in other respects. Id. The law of this circuit permits the use of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus in the immigration context. See Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1059 (9th Cir.2005).

*1164In Lopez-Umanzor, a pre-REAL ID Act immigration case, the petitioner applied' for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Id. at 1050. The IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed. Id. The petitioner appealed the BIA decision arguing the IJ’s decision was improperly based on personal bias regarding domestic violence. Id. The IJ had denied her application because he found the petitioner’s testimony regarding claims of domestic violence were not credible and he had “reason to believe” she had been involved in drug trafficking. Id. at 1050-51. The IJ found it unbelievable that the petitioner would return to her abuser, or that her abuser would have the desire or ability to find petitioner, had petitioner really tried to escape. Id. at 1054. Petitioner appealed the decision to this court and this court granted the petition and remanded. Id. at 1060.

This court found that the IJ’s view of the applicant’s credibility as to the domestic violence claim was improperly based on the IJ’s personal speculation, bias, and prejudgment about domestic violence. Id. at 1054. The court reasoned this prejudgment as to the domestic violence claim may have infected the IJ’s assessment of Petitioner’s testimony regarding Petitioner’s vulnerability to drug trafficking because the IJ may have followed “long recognized” law that a witness “deemed unbelievable as to one material fact may be disbelieved in all other respects,” also known by the maxim “falsus in. uno, falsus in omnibus.” Id. at 1059. The court remanded to a different immigration judge for further proceedings. Id.

The court in Lopez-Umanzor thus acknowledged that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ” may properly be used to evaluate witness testimony in immigration cases.2 Further, the maxim is the general law of the Ninth Circuit. See Hattem v. United States, 283 F.2d 339, 343 (9th Cir.1960) (approving a jury instruction that provided “[i]f you find that any witness in this trial has wilfully testified falsely as to any material fact in the case, then you are at liberty wholly to disregard all of the testimony of that witness”)3; Lozano Enters. v. NLRB, 327 F.2d 814, 816 n. 2 (9th Cir.1964) (holding that while “a witness may be totally disbelieved if he is found to have testified falsely in any respect,” this permissive rule “is not a command ” that such a witness be disbelieved (emphasis added));4 Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions 3.9 (2010) (stating that jurors may disbelieve all of a witness’s testimony based on whether other evidence contradicted the testimony or any other factors that bear on believabili*1165ty); Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions 1.11 (2007) (same). The maxim is also supported by unpublished cases.5

Another circuit, the Second Circuit, has also used the maxim in the context of- pre-REAL ID Act immigration cases. In Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 161 (2d Cir.2007), Felix Siewe, a citizen of the Republic of Cameroon, sought review of a BIA opinion affirming a decision of an IJ denying Siewe’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. Siewe claimed that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not supported. Id. The Second Circuit disagreed and denied the petition. Id. The Second Circuit found that Siewe was not credible because he gave inconsistent dates for important events. Id. at 162. In so holding,' the Second Circuit stated that “an IJ’s application of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus [false in one thing, false in everything] may at times be [correct].” Id. at-170. The court reasoned that, “In the immigration context, corroborating evidence is often limited, and the petitioner’s credibility is almost always crucial. So a single false document or a single instance' of false testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.” Id. (emphasis added). The court further explained “Falsus in uno is a natural and instinctive tool of the factfin-der, like a carpenter’s hammer or plumber’s wrench.” Id. at 171. Thus, the court found that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. Id.

Not only is falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus the law- of the Ninth Circuit, it is consistent with the pre-REAL ID Act standard of -review. Under the pre-REAL ID Act standard of review, adverse credibility findings require specific, unexplained reasons that “strike at the heart of the [asylum] claim.” Singh, 439 F.3d at 1105. This standard developed in response to IJs’ adverse credibility findings based on minor inconsistencies in petitioners’ testimonies which could result from mistranslation or miscommunication. See, e.g., Maini v. INS, 212 F.3d 1167, 1177 (9th Cir.2000) citing, inter alia, Vilorio-Lopez v. INS, 852 F.2d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.1988). However, requiring the reason for an adverse credibility finding go to the heart of the claim did not prohibit overall findings of adverse credibility based on material misstatements, which is consistent with the falsus in uno maxim.

Ceballos-Castillo v. INS is an early case holding that inconsistencies must go to the heart of an asylum claim. 904 F.2d 519, 520 (9th Cir.1990). In Ceballos-Castillo, the petitioners appealed the BIA’s denial of their application for asylum and withholding. Id. The BIA had held that “the aliens’ claims were not credible because of inconsistencies in their testimony....” Id. (emphasis added). The petitioners argued that the inconsistencies were minor and could not support the determination. Id. This court held that the inconsistencies— which included switching one claim from guerrilla persecution to government persecution, how the petitioners obtained their *1166passports, and whether one of the petitioners was subject to a capture order — “involved the heart of the asylum claim.” Id. The court held that “the finding of the BIA that the aliens’ testimony was incredible finds substantial support in the record.” Id. at 521.

In Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir.2005), the IJ found the petitioner’s testimony to be not credible, and the petitioner asked for review of a BIA decision, claiming the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by the evidence. Id. at 1133-34. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding of adverse credibility because of inconsistencies in the petitioner’s testimony. Id. at 1133. On appeal, this court noted that the IJ’s specific inconsistences were that the petitioner remembered some details of the gun, dress, and conversations of men who attacked him, but not complete details. Id. at 1134. The court found that these reasons were minor inconsistencies that were explainable by the circumstances of the attack. Id. at 1135. The court held that minor inconsistencies are an inadequate basis for an adverse credibility finding and did not go to the heart of the claim. Id. Because the court found the inconsistencies were minor, the court granted the petition and remanded. Id. at 1139.

The. maxim of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is consistent with the pre-REAL ID Act standard of review because both require that falsity be material and central to the claim, not minor. Here, the inconsistencies in Li’s testimony are not minor: inconsistencies regarding how long she was involved in her home church and when and why she applied for a passport are central to determining whether she suffered religious persecution. While these inconsistencies concern material aspects of her religious persecution claim for asylum, they do not touch upon her forced abortion claim. But Li is the same person who testified about both her claims. Whether she is a credible witness is central to any claim — religious persecution or forced abortion. Her credibility goes to the heart of either and both claims.

To hold otherwise would be to encourage asylum seekers to make as many claims for asylum as possible, in the hope that as to one, the IJ did not find any inconsistency that went to the “heart of the matter.” Thus, an asylum seeker who lied through three of his claims, but managed to recite a fourth uncontradicted, would skirt an adverse credibility finding as to the fourth. This result is not, and cannot be, the law. This is not the law in other circuits either. The cases cited by the dissent are distinguishable from this case. See Mansour v. INS, 230 F.3d 902, 908 (7th Cir.2000) (adverse credibility finding not relevant to claim based on whether person is .part of a certain ethnic/religious group);6 Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, *1167559 (3d Cir.2004) (prior adverse credibility determination on a religious persecution claim was not relevant to an asylum claim based on fear of persecution under China’s one-child policy when it was not disputed that petitioner now had two American-born children)7; Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir.2006) (prior adverse credibility determination as to petitioner’s “stories” of past persecution was not relevant to petitioner’s claim of fear of future persecution when it was not disputed he was a Christian in Pakistan).8 Mansour, Guo, and Paul all involve a prior adverse credibility determination incorrectly affecting a subsequent claim based on an undisputed fact: in Mansour that the petitioner was an Assyrian Christian, in Guo that the petitioner had given birth to two children in the United States, and in Paul that the petitioner was a practicing Christian. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus should not be applied when the truthfulness of the witness has no bearing on the claim, as is the case when the claim is based on proveable fact such as having two children or an undisputed ethnic classification. Here, however, Li offers no evidence of her concurrent claims other than her testimony; whether the IJ found Li to be a liar as to part of that testimony is entirely relevant, and material, to both her claims.

The dissent also points out that immigration proceedings, on average, take many years, which may lead to inconsistences based on faulty memory — not untruthfulness — and that aliens fleeing their *1168country because of persecution are not always able to grab corroborating documentation. The dissent also cites Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817, 821 (7th Cir.2007), a Seventh Circuit case which disapproves of the maxim on the grounds that human memory is fallible and memory “slips” do not mean a witness is unreliable. As Judge Posner’s decision makes clear, he believes the maxim applies to “the mistakes that witnesses make in all innocence” as well as “slips that ... show the witness is a liar.” Id. at 822. That may be how the maxim is applied in that circuit. That is not how it is applied here. The maxim is applied in this circuit not when the witnesses makes a “mistake in all innocence,” but only when the “witness ... has willfully testified falsely as to any material fact.” Hattem, 283 F.2d at 343 (emphasis added). Minor inconsistencies due to a lapse of time and faded memories are not the type of material, intentional, false testimony .which allows the use of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Further, we trust that IJs are aware of these problems with gathering evidence while fleeing, and we do not hold that IJs should discredit otherwise credible testimony based solely on a lack of corroborating evidence.

This court gives IJs the deference to exercise their common sense in making credibility findings:

[A]n IJ must be allowed to exercise common sense in rejecting a petitioner’s testimony even if the IJ cannot point to specific, contrary evidence in the record to refute it. Without such latitude, IJs would be bound to credit even the most outlandish testimony as long as it was internally consistent and not contradicted by independent evidence in the record.

Jibril, 423 F.3d at 1135. Further, while an applicant may establish his case through his testimony alone, Karouni v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163, 1174 (9th Cir.2005), the testimony establishes the claim only if the testimony is credible. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13 (“The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.”) (emphasis added). The credibility of witnesses is thus material and central to all their asylum claims.

In conclusion, Ninth Circuit precedent permits 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. Li’s petition for review is DENIED.