Jianguo Wu v. Jefferson Sessions
700 F. App'x 778
9th Cir.2017Background
- Jianguo Wu applied for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming past persecution and risk on return to China.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Wu’s testimony not credible; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- Two main credibility problems: (1) Wu listed different home addresses in China on his visa and asylum applications, one address linked to a hotel allegedly connected to persecution and the other not; (2) Wu provided inconsistent information about which hotel he worked for and when he stopped working there, later admitting he had given false employment information on his visa application.
- The IJ gave Wu opportunities to explain both discrepancies; the BIA considered his explanations and rejected them as not credible.
- Because the BIA found Wu’s testimony not credible, it concluded Wu failed to meet the burden for asylum and withholding of removal and that he also failed to show eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA permissibly relied on address discrepancy to deny credibility | Wu argued address differences were explainable and not indicative of fabrication | Government argued the inconsistency undermined veracity and related to claim (one address tied to alleged persecution) | BIA permissibly relied on the discrepancy; explanations rejected |
| Whether inconsistent employment information supports adverse credibility | Wu explained inconsistency by admitting false info on visa application | Government argued the falsehood went to a matter central to the claim (ability to obtain work) | BIA permissibly relied on the inconsistency/falsehood; adverse credibility affirmed |
| Whether adverse credibility precludes asylum and withholding | Wu contended other evidence (e.g., country conditions) could substitute for testimony | Government argued without credible testimony Wu failed to meet required showing | Court held without credible testimony Wu failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding |
| Whether Wu met CAT standard despite credibility findings | Wu relied on State Department report about torture risks and corruption in China | Government argued report alone did not make torture “more likely than not” for Wu | Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; report insufficient to show likelihood of torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir.) (adverse credibility may be based on inconsistencies or falsehoods that bear on veracity)
- Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.) (BIA must consider applicant's explanations for inconsistencies)
- Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972 (9th Cir.) (BIA must adequately explain why explanations are not credible)
- Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.) (IJ should give opportunity to explain inconsistencies)
- Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir.) (failure of credibility defeats asylum and withholding claims)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.) (country reports alone may be insufficient to meet CAT "more likely than not" standard)