Jiangeng Dong v. Sessions, 699 F. App'x 59

Background

Petitioner Jiangeng Dong, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on alleged persecution including a 1997 beating by family planning officials and later conversion to Christianity.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief after finding Dong not credible; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on June 10, 2016.
Dong had amended his asylum statement to add the 1997 beating after submitting his initial application; the amendment occurred after the filing and was a central factual allegation.
The IJ relied on demeanor, late omission of the alleged beating, and lack of reliable corroboration to support an adverse credibility finding.
The IJ discounted family- and church-supplied documents as interested-witness statements and questioned lack of a corroborating church witness; some official documents were given less weight for lack of authentication.
The Second Circuit reviewed only the agency’s adverse credibility determination and denied Dong’s petition for review, concluding errors by the agency were minor and the adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence	Dong argued omissions (e.g., initial failure to report beating) and other inconsistencies were excusable and counsel-related; his testimony and documents should be credited	Government argued omissions, demeanor, and weak corroboration justified adverse credibility finding	Held: Substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding
Whether late amendment adding violent beating was suspicious/manufactured	Dong contended the amendment was legitimate and explanatory	Government argued amendment after application, given controlling case law on spouses of sterilized persons, suggested fabrication to bolster claim	Held: IJ reasonably inferred amendment was suspect and possibly manufactured
Whether agency improperly required doctrinal knowledge to prove religious conversion	Dong argued IJ erred by expecting doctrinal detail for conversion claim	Government noted lack of church witness and corroboration justified skepticism	Held: Court found error in suggesting doctrinal knowledge required but this was harmless—failure to produce corroborating witness was dispositive
Whether lack of authenticated official documents fatally weakened corroboration	Dong argued official documents should have weight despite lack of formal authentication	Government argued documents were unauthenticated and of limited weight	Held: Agency erred in applying authentication rule to some documents but error was not outcome-determinative

Key Cases Cited

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard of review for agency credibility determinations)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (totality-of-circumstances test and deference to IJ credibility findings)
Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007) (spouse of sterilized person must show personal resistance to coercive population-control program)
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (permissible agency inferences when tethered to record)
Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (omission of material past harm can support adverse credibility)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (plausible explanations for inconsistencies insufficient to compel crediting testimony)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (corroboration standards and weight of interested-witness evidence)
Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (limitations on requiring formal authentication for foreign documents)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (common factual predicate: adverse credibility dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)