Jiao Wu v. Lynch
661 F. App'x 108
2d Cir.2016Background
- Petitioners Jiao Wu and Ming Li, Chinese nationals, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on alleged forced abortion and family‑planning persecution.
- An IJ denied relief after finding Wu not credible; the BIA affirmed that decision on April 8, 2015. Petitioners sought review in the Second Circuit.
- Key disputed facts: whether Wu’s 2011 abortion was forced or voluntary; whether officials imposed and repeatedly attempted to collect a 10,000 RMB fine; and whether petitioners produced corroborating records (hospital records for 2011 and 2007 abortions).
- The IJ relied on inconsistencies between Wu’s testimony and medical records, and between Wu’s and Li’s accounts of the fine, and found Li’s testimony unimpressive.
- Petitioners argued some IJ findings were unsupported (e.g., inconsistency over whether the 2011 pregnancy was planned) and sought remand; the Second Circuit reviewed both IJ and BIA decisions for completeness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse-credibility standard application | Wu: credibility errors partly unsupported; two IJ findings erroneous | Gov: totality of circumstances permits adverse credibility finding under REAL ID Act | Held: Adverse credibility upheld based on supported inconsistencies and lack of corroboration | |
| Conflict between testimony and 2011 medical records | Wu: records wrongly indicate voluntary abortion; she said it was involuntary and hospital mistake | Gov: medical records contradict testimony and Wu gave no satisfactory explanation | Held: Inconsistency supported adverse credibility; alone sufficient to deny relief | |
| Inconsistency about fine collection | Wu: testified officials sought monthly collection | Li: testified officials attempted collection once and then forgot; counsel declined further explanation | Gov: discrepancy undermines claim that they were fined at all | Held: Discrepancy further supports credibility adverse finding |
| Corroboration and remand | Wu: remand should correct record errors and allow explanation | Gov: existing record and inconsistencies suffice; remand unnecessary | Held: Remand would be futile; overall record supports denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviews both IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act allows credibility findings based on totality of circumstances)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (burden on alien to provide explanation for record inconsistencies)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (inconsistency that goes to claim’s basis can alone support adverse credibility)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (corroboration requirement and its role in credibility assessment)
- Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2005) (deference to IJ demeanor findings)
- Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (remand may be futile where substantial evidence supports adverse credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (same factual predicate controls asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)