Huazong Tang v. Loretta E. Lynch
674 F. App'x 754
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Huazong Tang, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection before an immigration judge (IJ).
- Tang requested a continuance to await the outcome of her appeal of a denied I-130 family petition; the IJ and BIA denied the continuance and dismissed her appeal.
- The IJ made an adverse credibility determination based on negative demeanor, inconsistencies about Tang’s contact with fellow detainees, and a conflict between her testimony and record evidence regarding an alleged arrest in China.
- Because the IJ found Tang not credible, her asylum and withholding claims were rejected for lack of corroborated, credible testimony.
- Tang’s CAT claim was denied because it rested on the same discredited testimony and she offered no other evidence showing torture was more likely than not.
- The Ninth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Tang’s petition for review, upholding the denial of the continuance and the adverse credibility finding, and refused judicial notice of new facts outside the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ abused discretion in denying continuance to await I-130 appeal | Tang argued continuance was warranted to await I-130 outcome | Agency argued denial was within IJ’s discretion for lack of good cause | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion |
| Whether denial of continuance violated due process | Tang contended due process violated by IJ’s denial | Government argued issue not exhausted before BIA | Court declined to consider due-process claim (not raised to BIA) |
| Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported | Tang argued her testimony was credible and explanations sufficient | Agency pointed to demeanor, internal inconsistencies, and conflict with records | Finding upheld on substantial-evidence review; credibility adverse stands |
| Whether asylum/withholding/CAT relief should be granted despite adverse credibility | Tang argued relief nonetheless warranted; sought judicial notice of new facts | Agency maintained claims rely on discredited testimony and no other evidence shows torture likelihood; opposed judicial notice | Relief denied for asylum/withholding/CAT; request for judicial notice denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2008) (continuance denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for adverse credibility under the REAL ID Act and substantial-evidence review)
- Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (requirements for adequate agency explanation of reasoning)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to raise claim before BIA forfeits review)
- Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (deference to agency credibility findings absent compelling contrary evidence)
- Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (asylum and withholding claims fail without credible testimony)
- Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996) (review limited to administrative record)