Deference to Demeanor Findings and Totality Standard in Credibility Determinations

1. Introduction

In Bi-Tong v. Bondi, No. 23-7421 (2d Cir. May 15, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) for petitioner Liu Bi-Tong, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Bi-Tong claimed he was arrested, beaten, and interrogated for attending an underground church. The respondent was Pamela Bondi, Acting U.S. Attorney General. This case centers on the agency’s adverse credibility determination and the deference owed to in-court demeanor findings under the “totality of the circumstances” standard.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit denied Bi-Tong’s petition for review. Applying substantial evidence review to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions, the court held that the agency reasonably found Bi-Tong not credible. Key findings included:

• Scripted testimony and marked changes in demeanor on cross-examination;
• Inconsistencies between Bi-Tong’s testimony and a letter from his mother about how she learned of his release;
• A discrepancy in the date Bi-Tong claimed to have received a friend’s letter versus the date on the letter itself;
• Absence of original corroborating documents and unavailability of third-party declarants for cross-examination.

Because all forms of relief depended on the same discredited facts, the adverse credibility ruling was dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) – Credibility may be assessed on demeanor, candor, consistency, and any inaccuracies without regard to whether they go “to the heart” of the claim.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) – Agency findings of fact are conclusive unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
• Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) – Scope of review when both IJ and BIA decisions are before the court.
• Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) – Standards for review of factual and legal conclusions in immigration cases.
• Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) – Deference to IJ credibility determinations, including demeanor observations.
• Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) – Third-party omissions may support adverse credibility if the omitted detail is something the declarant “would reasonably have been expected to disclose.”
• Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2020) – Affidavits from interested parties unavailable for cross-examination warrant little weight.
• Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) – Failure to corroborate undermines credibility and precludes rehabilitation of testimony.
• Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) – A single falsehood in testimony or documents can infect an applicant’s entire claim.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court applied the “totality of the circumstances” test for credibility, under which an IJ may consider factors such as demeanor, responsiveness, consistency between written and oral statements, and any inaccuracies or falsehoods. The IJ observed:

• Bi-Tong’s direct-examination answers mirrored earlier statements almost verbatim, suggesting a pre-prepared script;
• Long pauses and hesitations on cross-examination reflected a marked change in candor;
• Inconsistencies between Bi-Tong’s testimony and his mother’s letter concerning how she learned of his release;
• A mismatch between the date of a friend’s letter and Bi-Tong’s account of when he received it;
• Lack of original documents (e.g., the release notice) and absence of live testimony from third-party declarants.

The court gave deference to the IJ’s demeanor findings, noting that only the IJ “is in the best position to evaluate whether apparent problems in the testimony signal a lack of credibility.” Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), this adverse credibility determination stands unless it is “plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such a … ruling.”

3.3 Impact

Bi-Tong v. Bondi reinforces and clarifies several points in asylum practice:

• IJ demeanor assessments—though subjective—will be afforded great deference on appeal;
• Minor or collateral inconsistencies, when taken together, may cumulatively support an adverse credibility finding;
• Applications must include reliable, original documents or satisfactory explanations for their absence (see Immigration Court Practice Manual Ch. 3.3(d)(3));
• Third-party letters carry little weight if authors are unavailable for cross-examination or clearly interested parties.

Future petitioners in the Second Circuit—and potentially other jurisdictions following similar standards—will need to ensure that their testimony is consistent, spontaneous, and that corroborating materials are authentic, available, and unambiguous.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Substantial Evidence Standard: Courts must uphold agency fact findings unless no reasonable fact-finder could make them.
• Totality of the Circumstances: Credibility is judged by considering all relevant factors—demeanor, consistency, corroboration, etc.—as one holistic test.
• Adverse Credibility Determination: An official finding that an applicant’s testimony is not believable, which can doom all relief based on the same facts.
• Asylum vs. Withholding vs. CAT Relief: Asylum requires a well-founded fear of persecution; withholding requires a clear probability of harm; CAT relief requires likelihood of torture. Here, all hinged on the same factual predicate.
• Corroboration: Evidence that bolsters an applicant’s testimony. Absent or unreliable corroboration weakens credibility.
• Single Falsehood Doctrine: One false statement can undermine an entire claim if attributable to the applicant.

5. Conclusion

Bi-Tong v. Bondi underscores the Second Circuit’s rigorous application of the totality-of-circumstances test and its commitment to deferring to IJ demeanor findings. Practitioners should ensure:

• Verbatim congruence between written declarations and oral testimony only where genuinely recalled;
• Prompt submission of original corroborating documents, or a clear explanation for their absence;
• Availability of third-party witnesses for cross-examination whenever possible.

By reinforcing these practices, Bi-Tong v. Bondi strengthens procedural safeguards in asylum adjudications and clarifies the evidentiary threshold required to sustain relief under U.S. immigration law.