Lianhua Jiang v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10931
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Lianhua Jiang, a Chinese national of ethnic Korean descent, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on persecution for Christian faith after attending an underground "house church."
- She alleged arrest on January 16, 2005, detention for 17 days, physical abuse (slapped and kicked in an interrogation room until losing consciousness), and later forced to read government newspapers and write reports.
- At the merits hearing, Jiang’s live testimony initially described interrogation and forced reading/writing, but did not mention the physical beatings until prompted after counsel referenced her written declaration; the IJ found this omission significant.
- The IJ concluded Jiang was not credible and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed, adopting the IJ’s credibility finding and rejecting a due-process challenge to the hearing’s fairness.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and, relying on one adequate basis (the omission/late mention of beatings), upheld the adverse credibility determination and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility based on failure to mention physical abuse during repeated "anything else" questions | Jiang: omission arose from counsel's non-chronological questioning and her understanding that questions about "jail" did not include the prior interrogation room; testimony is consistent with declaration | Government/BIA: repeated, general "what else" questions covered entire 17-day detention; failure to mention beatings until prompted contradicts declaration and undermines credibility | Court: Held BIA/IJ had a permissible, specific basis; substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding (petition denied) |
| Effect of adverse credibility on asylum/withholding claims | Jiang: credibility error; if found credible, would meet asylum standards | Government: once credibility rejected, applicant failed to meet asylum/withholding burden | Court: Because credibility finding stands, asylum and withholding fail (withholding requires higher standard) |
| CAT claim sufficiency without credible testimony | Jiang: Country Report plus testimony establishes risk | Government: Country Report alone insufficient if testimony is discredited | Court: Held Country Report insufficient by itself; CAT relief denied without credible testimony |
| Due process / IJ bias from questioning about living arrangements | Jiang: IJ showed moralizing, interrupted, and was not neutral re: relationship with roommate; hearing not fair | Government: IJ’s questions aimed to assess witness credibility; no prejudice shown | Court: Held questioning was permissible fact-finding, not disqualifying bias; no prejudice shown, so no due-process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (even one supported inconsistency can sustain adverse credibility)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (REAL ID Act requires totality-of-circumstances and consideration of explanations for inconsistencies)
- Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (credibility findings reviewed under substantial-evidence standard; adverse credibility can defeat asylum and related claims)
- Gui v. I.N.S., 280 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA must offer specific, cogent reasons for adverse credibility)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (petitioners must show evidence compels contrary conclusion to overturn administrative findings)