Feng Lin v. Sessions
701 F. App'x 57
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Feng Lin, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on alleged membership in the China Democracy Party (CDP) in the U.S. and fear of persecution if returned to China.
- Lin testified that in November 2012 Chinese officials visited and threatened his parents in China, which he says shows the Chinese government knew of his CDP activities.
- Lin’s original asylum application predated the alleged November 2012 visit and he never amended the application or submitted a detailed, dated statement from his father describing the visit despite filing evidence in 2013 and having opportunity to amend.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lin’s credibility undermined by the omission and lack of corroboration and denied all relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both decisions and denied Lin’s petition for review, concluding the adverse credibility finding and denial of relief were reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility re: omission of 2012 visit | Lin: omission was inadvertent; credibility should not be undermined | Government: failure to amend and omission about central incident justified doubt | Court: upheld adverse credibility finding; omission central and reasonable to doubt |
| Burden to show government awareness | Lin: testimony and father's letter suffice | Government: need credible testimony or corroboration because claim could be fabricated | Court: petitioner failed burden—testimony unreliable and corroboration lacking |
| IJ duty to confront discrepancy | Lin: IJ should have explicitly asked for explanation before adverse finding | Government: discrepancy was central and non-dramatic-notice rule inapplicable | Court: IJ not required to specifically request explanation for central discrepancy |
| Eligibility for asylum (individual vs. pattern) | Lin: would be persecuted due to CDP membership; officials aware | Government: no proof officials aware or intent to persecute | Court: without credible evidence of government awareness or corroboration, asylum claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (review of IJ and BIA opinions for completeness)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (deference to credibility findings and treatment of inconsistencies/omissions)
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (subjective and objective fear standards for asylum)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (well-founded fear via individual targeting or pattern/practice analysis)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (importance of government awareness to political-activity claims)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (a single false statement can infect uncorroborated evidence)
- Ming Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (requirements before resting adverse credibility on non-dramatic discrepancies)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (burden of proof and corroboration in asylum claims)