Chun Feng v. William Barr
15-70479
| 9th Cir. | May 15, 2019Background
- Chun Feng, a Chinese national, petitioned for review of the BIA’s affirmance of an IJ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on an adverse credibility finding.
- The agency found Feng made inconsistent statements about why and when she came to the U.S. (initially fled persecution, later said she visited her son) and when she learned about asylum.
- Feng misrepresented employment and salary on her visa application and omitted employment from 1988–2006, contradicting testimony about a 2003 forced abortion tied to employer screening.
- Documentary evidence showed an abortion in 2003 and an IUD placement shortly thereafter, but no independent evidence that these procedures were involuntary.
- The IJ and BIA concluded that without credible testimony, the remaining evidence did not establish eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief; Feng identified no additional evidence the agency overlooked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ/BIA properly found Feng not credible | Feng contends her testimony and documents prove persecution and involuntary abortion | Agency argues contradictions and visa misrepresentations justify adverse credibility | BIA/IJ credibility finding supported by substantial evidence; petition denied |
| Whether evidence establishes asylum eligibility | Feng argues abortion and related facts show persecution and nexus to protected ground | Agency says discounted testimony leaves no proof procedures were involuntary or persecutory | Without credible testimony, documentary evidence insufficient for asylum |
| Whether withholding of removal established | Feng ties same facts to higher withholding standard | Agency notes withholding requires meeting asylum burden first; no credible asylum showing | Because asylum burden unmet, withholding also fails |
| Whether CAT relief established | Feng argues risk of torture if returned based on same factual record | Agency asserts CAT claim rests on same non-credible statements and lacks independent proof | CAT denial supported: claim relies on discredited testimony and no other evidence presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.) (standard: substantial-evidence review of agency credibility findings)
- Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir.) (adverse credibility may be based on inconsistencies and misrepresentations)
- Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir.) (failure to meet asylum burden precludes withholding relief)
- Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917 (9th Cir.) (CAT requires showing torture more likely than not by or with acquiescence of government)
- Kamalathas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir.) (IJ must consider all evidence relevant to future torture independently of asylum findings)
- Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.) (CAT claim may be denied if based on the same statements found not credible)