Jianli Chen v. Holder
703 F.3d 17
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Chen and Hu, Chinese nationals, entered the United States without inspection in 2005 and 2006 and are in removal proceedings.
- They conceded removability and cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; cases were consolidated before an IJ.
- Chen faced coercive population control with an IUD and a forced abortion in 2005; she later traveled to Thailand, then to the United States.
- Hu left China and undertook a long journey to the United States; Chen remarried Hu in the United States in 2006, and they had a second child in New York.
- The IJ found their testimony not credible, denied asylum and related relief, and the BIA affirmed with a remand on Hu’s past persecution issue; petitioners sought judicial review.
- The First Circuit reviews under substantial evidence for credibility and de novo for legal questions, and explains the roles of the IJ and BIA in fact-finding and decisionmaking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural challenge to BIA factfinding | Chen argues BIA improperly engaged in independent factfinding. | HOLDER contends BIA synthesized IJ findings within proper bounds. | Procedural claim rejected; BIA did not engage in improper independent factfinding. |
| Substantive credibility of petitioners | Chen and Hu contend adverse credibility determinations are errors. | BIA/IJ credibility findings are supported by the record and proper under REAL ID Act standards. | Adverse credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence; asylum claim fails. |
| Well-founded fear/past persecution and relief | Credible fear of persecution due to China’s population-control policy warranted relief. | Lack of credibility defeats the well-founded fear/ past persecution claims; withholding/CAT accordingly denied. | Relief denied due to lack of proven credibility and absence of evidence supporting fear/past persecution. |
| CAT claims | Petitioners argue CAT relief; lack of development requires consideration. | Claims are skeletal and abandoned. | CAT claims rejected as abandoned for lack of developed argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bebri v. Mukasey, 545 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2008) (credibility and weight of testimony in asylum cases)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (legal framework for asylum claims and factual evaluation)
- Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence standard in immigration appeals)
- Rivas-Mira v. Holder, 556 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (well-founded fear/credible testimony considerations)
- Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (case-by-case approach to two-child policy claims)
- Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008) (agency role in evaluating IJ findings on appeal)
- Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2007) (court reviews omissions and inconsistencies in testimony)