Case Citator › Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey

Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courtsin review
247 of 248 flagged citations read · 99.6%
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
534 F.3d 162
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
247 of 248
Citing cases (total)
2,106
Treatment dates
2018
Limited by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey is still in review: 247 of 248 flagged citations have been read. The Second Circuit limited its statement that omissions and inconsistencies are functionally equivalent for credibility purposes, as listed below.
More on how this was screened

The text of one citing opinion could not be reliably retrieved, so its treatment remains unknown.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,106 later cases cite Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey; 248 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Second Circuit confined Xiu Xia Lin's dictum equating omissions with inconsistencies, holding that omissions are generally less probative of credibility than direct contradictions.

    Gao v. Sessions · Second Circuit · filed

    Because of this tension, although we have noted in dictum that an inconsistency and an omission are "functionally equivalent" for adverse credibility purposes, Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3, in general "omissions are less probative of credibility than inconsistencies created by direct contradictions in evidence and testimony," Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2014).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace