Jin v. Sessions
683 F. App'x 30
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Honglan Jin, a Chinese national and alleged Falun Gong practitioner, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in the U.S.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Jin petitioned for review to the Second Circuit.
- Jin testified about practicing Falun Gong and alleged her name and picture appeared in 2011–2012 publications abroad and online.
- The agency found Jin’s testimony lacked detail and required corroboration (statements from fellow practitioners) which she did not provide or adequately explain why could not be obtained.
- The agency also concluded Jin failed to show Chinese authorities were or likely would become aware of her activities based on the publications; absence of past persecution or a reasonable likelihood of future persecution was dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jin’s testimony alone sufficed without corroboration | Jin argued her testimony was credible and sufficient to prove practice of Falun Gong | Government argued testimony lacked detail and required corroboration from fellow practitioners or other evidence | The court held agency reasonably required corroboration and Jin failed to meet burden |
| Whether Jin established well‑founded fear of persecution | Jin argued publications with her name/photo exposed her to Chinese authorities and future risk | Government argued publications were not shown to be circulated in China and risk of discovery was speculative | The court held Jin failed to show authorities are aware or likely to become aware; fear is speculative |
| Whether failure on asylum claim forecloses withholding and CAT relief | Jin contended related claims should succeed if asylum standards met | Government argued all claims rest on same factual predicate and fail together | The court held all claims failed because they rely on same unsupported facts |
| Whether BIA/IJ applied correct standards and procedures | Jin argued the agency erred in weighing evidence and in requiring corroboration | Government maintained agency applied proper standards and cited evidentiary deficiencies | The court held the agency properly applied the law and denied review |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir.) (reviewing both IJ and BIA opinions for completeness)
- Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir.) (corroboration standards for asylum testimony)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.) (requirement to show authorities are aware or likely to become aware)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (speculation insufficient where publications unlikely to be noticed by Chinese government)
- Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.) (speculative fear of persecution insufficient without solid support)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (claims based on same factual predicate are dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT)