Jin Li v. Sessions
700 F. App'x 49
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Jin Li, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; IJ denied relief on Nov. 14, 2012; BIA affirmed Jan. 20, 2016.
- Agency found Li’s asylum application untimely (not filed within one year of arrival); Li challenged that finding.
- For withholding/CAT, the IJ required corroboration of Li’s claims (notably church attendance in China) and found the provided evidence (a dated form letter) inconsistent with Li’s testimony.
- Li attempted to introduce additional witnesses and an affidavit from his brother late; IJ excluded the witnesses for untimeliness but offered an adjournment, which Li declined. Li never proffered his brother as a live witness.
- Li argued denial of due process based on exclusion of witnesses; agency also found Li failed to show persecution level mistreatment (an alternative ground not reached by the Court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum application | Li contended asylum was timely filed or that agency erred in finding otherwise | Government defended agency finding that Li failed to show arrival within one year | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review untimeliness/changed-circumstances findings under 8 U.S.C. §1158(a)(3) and §1252(a)(2)(D) |
| Corroboration for withholding/CAT | Li argued his testimony plus submitted evidence sufficed; brother’s affidavit should carry weight | Government argued corroboration was inadequate and evidence was inconsistent/unavailable | Denied relief—agency reasonably required corroboration and discounted the inconsistent form letter; Li failed to provide or proffer available corroboration |
| Exclusion of untimely witnesses | Li argued exclusion denied him full presentation of claims | Government argued IJ properly exercised discretion given untimely notice and offered adjournment | Denied—IJ acted within discretion; offer to adjourn relieved prejudice claim because Li declined it |
| Due process claim based on evidentiary rulings | Li claimed exclusion of witnesses violated due process | Government maintained Li suffered no cognizable prejudice and had opportunity to be heard | Denied—no due process violation shown because Li declined adjournment and did not proffer brother as witness |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir.) (review of BIA and IJ decisions when appropriate)
- Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir.) (corroboration procedures and requirements)
- Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716 (2d Cir.) (jurisdictional limits on review of timeliness)
- Ahmed v. Holder, 624 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.) (IJ discretion over hearing conduct and evidence)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (weight to be given corroborating documents)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (credibility and weight to evidence)
- Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.) (standards for corroboration in withholding/CAT contexts)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (U.S.) (agency findings affirmed when supported)
- Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549 (2d Cir.) (due process right to full and fair opportunity in removal proceedings)
- Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131 (2d Cir.) (definition of fundamental fairness in immigration hearings)
- Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.) (prejudice requirement for due process claims in immigration cases)