Jianping Wang v. Loretta Lynch, 824 F.3d 587

Background

Jianping Wang, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. in June 2006 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after conceding removability.
The DHS argued Wang’s written statement and testimony were strikingly similar in wording and structure to two unrelated asylum applications submitted in other cases.
The initial IJ found Wang credible and granted asylum, but the BIA remanded because the IJ did not adequately address the inter-application similarities or other record evidence.
On remand, a different IJ identified numerous identical formatting, phrases, and substantive events across the three statements (e.g., nurse introduction to Christianity, police raid at 10/10:30 am, identical injuries, RMB 8,000 bond, use of terms like “devil cult” and “reactionary purpose”).
Wang was given notice of the similarities and an opportunity to explain on remand but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation; the IJ found his corroborating evidence (wife’s letter, medical records) insufficient.
The IJ denied all relief; the BIA affirmed. The Sixth Circuit denied Wang’s petition for review, holding the adverse credibility and corroboration findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inter-application similarities may be used to discredit an asylum applicant	Wang: similarities irrelevant; could result from same preparer or common patterns among Chinese Christian persecution claims	DHS: striking, specific identical language and facts across unrelated cases suggests fabrication	Court: Agency may consider such similarities if applicant is given notice and chance to explain; here procedures satisfied and skepticism reasonable
Whether Wang had adequate opportunity to explain similarities	Wang: prior proceedings inadequate; similarities should not bear on credibility	DHS: Wang was notified at initial hearing and again on remand and given chance to respond	Court: Wang was afforded meaningful notice and opportunity; his failure to explain supports adverse credibility finding
Whether corroborating evidence was sufficient to support Wang’s claims	Wang: offered wife’s letter and medical records as corroboration	DHS: evidence was vague and did not corroborate key aspects (church membership, mistreatment details, ongoing practice of Christianity)	Court: Corroboration insufficient; failure to provide reasonably available evidence supports denial
Whether denial of asylum forecloses withholding of removal and CAT relief	Wang: adverse credibility should not extend to withholding/CAT relief	DHS: withholding and CAT require higher showing; credibility failure defeats both	Court: Because asylum denied for lack of credibility, withholding and CAT relief also unavailable

Key Cases Cited

Mei Chai Ye v. United States Dep't of Justice, 489 F.3d 517 (2d Cir. 2007) (approving adverse credibility inference from striking similarities when applicant given notice and opportunity to explain)
Dehonzai v. Holder, 650 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (upholding adverse credibility finding where applicant’s statement replicated a relative’s affidavit and was given multiple chances to explain)
Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. 2009) (corroboration expected where reasonably available and relevant to claimed persecution)
Abdurakhmanov v. Holder, 735 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2013) (failure to produce reasonably available corroborative evidence supports denial)
Yu v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2004) (describing substantial-evidence standard for reviewing agency factfinding)
Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2008) (withholding of removal requires a more stringent showing than asylum)
Zhao v. Holder, 569 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2009) (credibility failure undermines CAT relief)
El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2009) (REAL ID Act permits adverse credibility findings on various bases without regard to whether they go to the heart of the claim)