Hui Zhu v. Sessions, 693 F. App'x 86

Petitioner Hui Zhu, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on past religious persecution (Christian faith) and fear of future persecution, plus alleged penalties for having U.S.-born children in violation of China’s population control policy.
IJ denied relief on March 15, 2012; BIA affirmed on November 25, 2013. Zhu petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
The agency found Zhu not credible regarding her alleged detention, including inconsistent testimony about whether she signed a confession letter and perceived acting during testimony.
The agency also relied on lack of corroboration (no statement from her husband) to support the adverse credibility finding.
The BIA found her fear of future religious persecution weakened by evidence that family members in China practice Christianity without harm and that many Christians worship in unregistered (underground) churches without uniform government interference.
The agency rejected relief based on the births of her children in the U.S. under the population-control theory, citing circuit precedent requiring individualized proof of persecution risk.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credibility of past persecution claim	Zhu asserted she was detained and persecuted for practicing Christianity; testimony establishes past persecution	Agency argued testimony was inconsistent, Zhu appeared to be acting, and lacked corroboration	Court upheld adverse credibility finding; substantial evidence supports denial of past persecution
Corroboration requirement	Zhu argued available evidence sufficient without husband’s statement	Government stressed absence of corroboration (husband) justified adverse credibility	Court agreed agency reasonably relied on lack of corroboration as part of credibility analysis
Well-founded fear of future persecution	Zhu feared future religious persecution and penalties for U.S.-born children under population control policy	Government pointed to family remaining in China unharmed, localized variation in enforcement, and large underground Christian population	Court held fear was not well-founded; evidence showed risk varied by locality and family’s safety undermined claim
Relief based on U.S.-born children (population control)	Zhu sought relief claiming births violate China’s population control, leading to persecution	Government relied on Jian Hui Shao precedent requiring specific proof of risk from population control enforcement	Court held Zhu failed to meet burden under Jian Hui Shao; no eligibility shown

Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (standards for persecution claims tied to China’s population-control policy)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (credibility determinations and adverse credibility standard)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (demeanor-based credibility findings)
Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (inconsistent testimony supports credibility findings)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (corroboration requirement when credibility questioned)
Yan Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246 (2d Cir.) (importance of corroboration evidence)
Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307 (2d Cir.) (family members’ safety in home country can undercut fear claims)
Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.) (localized variation in persecution affects well-founded fear analysis)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (adverse credibility disposes of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)