Chuan Feng Yu v. Sessions
695 F. App'x 8
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Chuan Feng Yu, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after alleged persecution including detention, beatings to prevent sleep, and forced family-planning measures affecting his wife.
- An IJ denied relief based chiefly on an adverse credibility finding; the BIA affirmed that decision on February 25, 2014.
- The IJ relied on perceived omissions in Yu’s written application (e.g., not specifying “30–40” beatings) and a demeanor finding based on limited examples of non-responsiveness.
- The IJ also rejected a one-year witness statement as unreliable because the author was an interested witness and the IJ discounted the statement without cross-examining the witness (parties had stipulated the witness would testify consistently with her written statement).
- The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ and BIA decisions, found errors in the credibility analysis, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility: omission/consistency of written statement | Yu: his I-589 described repeated beatings and sleep deprivation; lack of numeric detail is not an omission | Gov: absence of specific details (e.g., "30–40" beatings) undermines credibility | Court: IJ erred treating lack of a numeric detail as a dispositive omission; applicants need not list every incident |
| Credibility: demeanor/responsiveness | Yu: any perceived non-responsiveness was due to unclear questioning; he was responsive when asked clearly | Gov: Yu’s demeanor suggested scripted testimony and evasiveness | Court: Single unclear exchange insufficient to support adverse demeanor finding; IJ’s demeanor basis was weak |
| Timeliness / one-year bar and treatment of witness statements | Yu: IJ improperly discounted available witness’s written statement without cross-examining her when doubting veracity | Gov: IJ may discount statements by interested witnesses not subject to cross-examination | Court: Presents an open legal question whether an IJ must cross-examine an available witness before discrediting her written statement on interest grounds; remanded to BIA to decide first |
| Remedy / remand futility | Yu: remand appropriate because credibility and witness issues require further proceedings | Gov: BIA’s timeliness ruling could be an alternative ground making remand futile | Court: Credibility errors mean remand not futile; one-year bar cannot be resolved here without BIA addressing the cross-examination duty; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing IJ/BIA decisions
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (REAL ID Act credibility standard; deference to IJ credibility findings)
- Pavlova v. INS, 441 F.3d 82 (2d Cir.) (applicants need not list every incident; mischaracterizing lack of detail as omission may be error)
- Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395 (2d Cir.) (deference to demeanor findings)
- Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.) (IJ’s obligation to develop the record)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S.) (cross-examination as key method to assess testimonial reliability)
- Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.) (treatment of letters and interested-witness statements)
- Jian Hui Shao v. BIA, 465 F.3d 497 (2d Cir.) (deference to BIA to resolve statutory interpretation questions)
- Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (remand futility analysis)