Hui Lin Huang v. Holder
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6243
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Hui Lin Huang and Zeng Yong Zhou are PRC nationals who entered the U.S. without valid documents; Huang filed for asylum in 2006 and both conceded removability after notices to appear in 2007.
- Huang testified that if removed to China she would face forced sterilization under local family planning policies and severe fines, with potential jail time and property destruction for nonpayment.
- IJ found Huang credible and concluded she demonstrated a subjective fear and that the fear was objectively reasonable, ordering asylum.
- BIA reversed, holding that predictions of future events are not factual findings reviewable for clear error, and reviewed the asylum fear determination de novo while giving weight to State Department country reports.
- Court granted the petition, remanding to reconsider the IJ finding of coercive sterilization as a factual issue and to determine if the objectively reasonable fear persists, with State Department reports properly considered on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA erred by treating a future-event finding as non-factual | Huang | BIA treated future harms as non-factual | Remanded; IJ finding on future sterilization must be reviewed as fact-finding. |
| Standard of review for objective fear of persecution | Huang | BIA may review de novo the objective fear | BIA's de novo review for objective fear proper; remand to reassess under correct framework. |
| Role of State Department country reports in weighing fear | Huang | Reports are probative but reversible weight | Weight given to country reports permissible; remand to reweigh with proper methodological care. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (recognizes limits of speculative future-event evidence in asylum)
- In re Jackson, 593 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2010) (future earnings as a factual finding reviewed for clear error)
- National Market Share, Inc. v. Sterling National Bank, 392 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2004) (future viability as a factual finding reviewed for clear error)
- Fuchstadt v. United States, 442 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1971) (future earnings as fact-finding reviewed for clear error)
- Kaplun v. Attorney General, 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010) (limits of de novo review on future-event predictions)
- En Hui Huang v. Attorney General, 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2010) (three-question framework for objectively reasonable fear)
- J Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (BIA's treatment of factual findings and weight of evidence)
- Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2005) (requirement of adequate analysis on asylum denials)
- Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (subjective fear and well-founded fear standard for asylum)