Huinan Lin v. Jefferson Sessions, 707 F. App'x 473

Huinan Lin alleges she was forcibly taken by Chinese officials and subjected to a forced abortion on December 27, 2000; she submitted hospital records, a village notice ordering family-planning checks, and medical notes documenting IUD removal.
Witness Xiao Qin Lin testified she saw Lin after the abortion and corroborated that Lin was pale, weak, and had been taken involuntarily; the IJ did not find Qin Lin incredible.
The BIA and IJ relied in part on Lin’s husband Huomin Cao’s separate asylum application and prior testimony to find Lin not credible, citing omissions and discrepancies between Lin’s account and Cao’s statements.
Lin contended the use of Cao’s materials without opportunity to confront or present his testimony violated her Fifth Amendment right to a full and fair hearing; she did not raise this claim before the BIA.
The Ninth Circuit held the due-process claim was unexhausted but found the BIA’s adverse credibility determination arbitrary because it improperly relied on Cao’s record; the court credited Lin’s corroborated evidence of forced abortion.
Result: the court grants the petition in part, holds Lin entitled to withholding of removal as a matter of law, remands asylum eligibility to the BIA for discretionary consideration, and denies the unexhausted due-process claim and a separate challenge regarding fear of future persecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility determination	Lin: BIA/IJ improperly relied on her husband Cao’s inconsistent asylum record; Lin’s own testimony and corroboration are credible	Gov: discrepancies and omissions (including Cao’s statements) justified adverse credibility finding	Court: Reversed — reliance on Cao’s record was arbitrary; totality of evidence compels credibility
Use of husband’s asylum materials (due process)	Lin: Using Cao’s application/transcript without chance to present his testimony or review materials violated her Fifth Amendment right	Gov: Use of prior materials was permitted; any procedural error could have been cured at hearing	Court: Claim unexhausted before BIA; federal court lacks jurisdiction to decide it
Challenge to finding re: fear of future persecution based on children	Lin: Implicitly challenges BIA’s finding about future persecution given her children situation	Gov: BIA’s finding stands; one child born in U.S. reduces future persecution risk	Court: Lin waived challenge by not briefing it specifically; denied
Remedy — decide eligibility or remand	Lin: Court should decide asylum/withholding after reversing credibility	Gov: Issues may need remand for BIA to exercise discretion	Court: Grants withholding of removal as a matter of law; remands asylum to BIA for discretionary determination

Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826 (9th Cir.) (standard of substantial-evidence review for credibility findings)
Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857 (9th Cir.) (review when BIA relies partly on IJ reasoning)
Tang v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 987 (9th Cir.) (standard for reversing BIA only when evidence compels reversal; withholding entitlement when past forced abortion established)
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir.) (procedural errors that could be cured at hearing affect exhaustion/waiver analysis)
Bao v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 426 (2d Cir.) (criticizing reliance on one spouse’s record to discredit the other without basis)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.) (corroboration rules and considering witness testimony)
Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir.) (documentary evidence credible when unchallenged by government)
He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593 (9th Cir.) (forced abortion findings can establish statutory eligibility)
Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.) (when to remand vs. decide eligibility after reversing credibility)