Hua Wu Wu v. U.S. Attorney General
687 F. App'x 793
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Hua Wu, a Chinese national, applied for asylum (religion), withholding of removal, CAT relief, and cancellation of removal after entering the U.S. without inspection; he claimed persecution for Christianity and for violating China’s one‑child policy (fathering three children in the U.S.).
- Evidence submitted: country reports, letters from Chinese and U.S. pastors, letters from family, photographs, and an affidavit from a brother‑in‑law; Wu testified at merits hearings in 2010 and 2012.
- The IJ made an adverse credibility finding (noting inconsistencies and omissions, notably that Wu first reported being detained and beaten only at the 2012 hearing) and denied all relief; the BIA affirmed, relying principally on the adverse credibility determination and finding the family‑planning claim waived.
- The BIA did not address whether Wu’s corroborating documentary evidence could establish future religious persecution despite his adverse credibility finding.
- This appeal challenges (1) the sufficiency of the agency’s credibility finding, (2) whether corroborating evidence could support future persecution claims notwithstanding adverse credibility, and (3) denial of relief based on China’s family‑planning policy and cancellation of removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ/BIA gave specific, cogent reasons for adverse credibility | Wu: IJ/BIA relied on unreliable pre‑2005 records and minor inconsistencies; reasons were insufficient | Gov: Inconsistencies (notably omission of alleged detention/beating) and other testimony flaws supported adverse credibility | Court: Adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence; denial as to past persecution upheld |
| Whether corroborating evidence can establish future religious persecution despite adverse credibility | Wu: Letters, photos, and country reports corroborate his practice and risk; agency must consider this evidence | Gov: Adverse credibility is dispositive | Held: BIA erred by relying solely on adverse credibility; remanded for BIA to decide whether corroboration shows eligibility for relief |
| Jurisdiction to review family‑planning claim based on waiver | Wu: Merits challenge to persecution for violating one‑child policy | Gov: Claim was not raised to BIA, waived | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction because issue was not presented to BIA; claim dismissed |
| Reviewability of cancellation of removal denial (hardship/discretion) | Wu: Showed exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to U.S. citizen children | Gov: Denial was discretionary and not reviewable | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial under §1229b; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (substantial‑evidence review of credibility; testimony may suffice if credible)
- Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (adverse credibility does not relieve IJ of duty to consider other corroborating evidence)
- Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 584 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2009) (requirements for explicit adverse credibility findings and specific, cogent reasons)
- Gonzalez v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 820 F.3d 399 (11th Cir. 2016) (review scope when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
- Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762 (11th Cir. 2007) (treatment of BIA’s decision as final judgment)
- D‑Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard for CAT relief)
- Gonzalez‑Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional limits where issues not reached by BIA)
- Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2006) (nonreviewability of discretionary cancellation of removal determinations)