The “Single-Inconsistency” Touchstone: Liu v. Bondi and the Modern Architecture of Adverse-Credibility Review

Introduction

Liu v. Bondi, No. 23-6623 (2d Cir. May 12, 2025) is a non-precedential summary order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that nevertheless delivers a doctrinally rich reaffirmation of two recurring themes in U.S. immigration law: (1) the sufficiency of a single, material inconsistency to sustain an adverse-credibility finding, and (2) the evidentiary threshold for post-entry religious-practice claims.

Petitioner Zhensong Liu, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging past persecution on account of his Christian faith and a well-founded fear of future harm. Both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected his claims, fundamentally on credibility grounds. The Second Circuit denied review, emphasizing that an inconsistency concerning Liu’s ocular injuries—right eye in live testimony versus left eye in medical records—alone could support the adverse-credibility determination and, by extension, the denial of all requested relief.

Summary of the Judgment

• The court reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions under the substantial-evidence standard for factual findings and de novo review for questions of law.
• A material inconsistency regarding which eye was injured during Liu’s alleged arrest rendered his testimony not credible. The discrepancy was neither cured by his explanations nor corroborated by documentary evidence.
• Given the credibility ruling, the claims for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief predicated on past persecution necessarily failed.
• Liu’s alternative theory—future persecution based on his continued Christian practice in the United States—also failed because he did not show Chinese authorities were or likely would become aware of his activities, nor did the country-conditions evidence amount to a “pattern or practice” of persecuting ordinary church members.
• Petition for review: DENIED; all pending motions: DENIED.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018)
   – Confirmed that omissions may be probative if the omitted fact is one the applicant “would reasonably have been expected to disclose.” The Liu panel relied on Gao to treat the eye-injury silence in Liu’s written statement as supportive of the adverse finding.
2. Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2020)
   – Articulated that even a single inconsistency can suffice. Liu leverages this principle as a doctrinal anchor, applying it to the eye-injury conflict.
3. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005)
   – Holds that a plausible explanation does not mandate crediting testimony; the explanation must compel a contrary conclusion. The court cited Majidi to discount Liu’s attempt to reconcile the eye discrepancy.
4. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) & Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008)
   – Provide the framework for future-persecution claims after an adverse-credibility ruling, highlighting the “awareness or likely awareness” requirement. The panel applied these cases to Liu’s post-entry Christian worship.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Totality-of-the-Circumstances Credibility Analysis
   • The inconsistency on eye injury was (i) internally contradictory (oral statements vs. medical record), and (ii) externally uncorroborated (family letters lacked details and identity proofs).
   • Under INA § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), any inconsistency, even if peripheral, may be considered; here, the inconsistency went “to the heart” because it implicated both the alleged arrest and the authenticity of medical evidence.
2. Corroboration as a Credibility Multiplier
   • Having deemed testimony suspect, the agency looked for rehabilitative evidence. • Family declarations were accorded little weight: declarants were interested, unavailable, and lacked identity documents (Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324).
3. Future Persecution Framework
   • After discounting past persecution, the panel turned to Liu’s prospective claim. Because Liu supplied no evidence of government awareness, he had to meet the “pattern or practice” route, requiring proof that similarly-situated Christians face systemic persecution—an evidentiary showing the State Department reports did not support.

C. Impact on Future Litigation

• Re-cementing “One and Done” Inconsistency Principle – Practitioners must assume that a single material inconsistency, especially about documentary evidence, can be outcome-determinative.
• Heightened Scrutiny of Medical Records – Where medical documents aim to corroborate physical abuse, any mismatch between narrative testimony and clinical detail will invite an adverse inference.
• Cautious Reliance on Affidavits – Unsigned letters or those lacking identification copies may be discounted; counsel should fortify affidavits with government-issued IDs and, where feasible, remote testimony.
• Post-Entry Religious Activity Claims – Liu makes clear that generalized country reports, without a demonstrable nexus to the applicant’s own profile or province, rarely clear the “pattern or practice” bar.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial-Evidence Standard

A deferential review standard: the court upholds the agency’s factual findings unless any reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to decide differently.

Adverse-Credibility Determination

When an IJ concludes an applicant’s testimony is not believable. It may rest on inconsistencies, omissions, demeanor, or lack of corroboration.

Pattern-or-Practice Claim

An asylum theory whereby the applicant need not prove individual targeting if there is a systematic practice of persecuting people with the same characteristics.

Clear Probability vs. Reasonable Possibility

Withholding of removal requires showing persecution is more likely than not (clear probability); asylum requires only a reasonable possibility (approx. 10% chance).

Conclusion

Although designated a non-precedential summary order, Liu v. Bondi is a potent illustration of how modern credibility jurisprudence functions in practice. It confirms that:

• An IJ may rely on a single, material inconsistency—particularly one that undermines both live testimony and documentary evidence—to deny relief.
• Omissions in written statements, if describing events one would “reasonably have been expected to disclose,” reinforce adverse inferences.
• Corroboration is not a procedural afterthought; it is the primary vehicle for rehabilitating shaky testimony and must be executed with rigor.
• For post-entry religious-practice claims, applicants must supply evidence that home-country authorities know—or are likely to learn—of their activities, or else demonstrate a country-wide pattern of persecuting rank-and-file adherents.

In sum, Liu tightens the evidentiary screws on asylum applicants, providing a cautionary roadmap for counsel and adjudicators alike: precision, consistency, and robust corroboration are indispensable.