Fengrong Ding v. Sessions
707 F. App'x 35
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Fengrong Ding, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on forced abortion/family‑planning persecution.
- IJ denied relief; BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Petition for review to Second Circuit followed.
- Central evidence: Ding’s asylum application, her hearing testimony, and medical records concerning IUD removals and abortions.
- Applicant alleged a single forced abortion and one IUD removal; medical records showed two IUD removals and two abortions.
- A 2014 record Ding later produced introduced timing discrepancies (hospital arrival time) inconsistent with her testimony about officials arriving at her home.
- The agency found these material inconsistencies undermined Ding’s credibility and denied all relief because the claims shared the same factual predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency permissibly made an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies between testimony and records | Ding: inconsistencies showed worse mistreatment and were not evidence of fabrication | Government: inconsistencies go to the heart of her claim and undermine credibility | Court: Affirmed—substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding |
| Whether Ding’s explanations and later medical record cured inconsistencies | Ding: later record and explanations resolve discrepancies and enhance credibility | Government: explanations were themselves inconsistent and did not rehabilitate credibility | Court: Explanations were inconsistent; agency not required to credit them |
| Whether alleged “cherry‑picking” by agency invalidated its credibility determination | Ding: agency selectively relied on records to find inconsistencies while discounting them elsewhere | Government: agency may weigh evidence and assess conflicting materials | Court: Agency properly exercised discretion in weighing evidence |
| Consequence of adverse credibility for asylum, withholding, and CAT claims | Ding: if credible, relief should be granted | Government: adverse credibility is dispositive because all claims share same factual predicate | Court: Because claims share the same predicate, adverse credibility dispositively denies all relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Yun‑Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (totality of circumstances standard; deference to credibility findings)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (material inconsistency at heart of claim supports adverse credibility)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (agency may reject explanations that are inconsistent)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (credibility of testimony affects weight of supporting records)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (agency discretion to weigh evidence)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility dispositive when all claims share same factual predicate)