Mingshun Jin v. Sessions
706 F. App'x 11
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Mingshun Jin, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on past detention/interrogation for harboring a North Korean refugee and political activities related to the Chinese Democracy and Justice Party (CDJP).
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief after finding Jin not credible; the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and denied Jin’s subsequent motion to remand.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial of remand and the agency’s adverse credibility determination (the IJ’s discretionary denial of asylum was not reached by the BIA).
- The agency relied on omissions in Jin’s application (e.g., failing to state detention/interrogation and police contact with family), demeanor (long pauses and nonresponsive answers), vague testimony about CDJP, and insufficient corroboration (unauthenticated membership card/letters and articles given minimal weight).
- Because all claims (asylum, withholding, CAT) rested on the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility finding was dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility determination | Jin argued omissions and vagueness did not merit disbelief; testimony credible overall | Government argued omissions, demeanor, vagueness, and weak corroboration justify adverse credibility | Court: Substantial evidence supports adverse credibility (omissions = inconsistencies; demeanor credible; vagueness despite questioning; corroboration insufficient) |
| Motion to remand for ineffective assistance of counsel | Jin argued counsel omitted/inadequately elicited key facts and failed to present letters from husband/son | Government argued Jin did not show she provided omitted info to counsel nor actual prejudice from counsel’s conduct | Court: BIA did not abuse discretion; Jin failed to allege competent counsel would have acted differently or show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act totality-of-the-circumstances credibility standard and deference to IJ credibility findings)
- Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for BIA’s denial of remand review)
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (procedural review principles for IJ/BIA decisions)
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (review scope when BIA supplements/modifies IJ decision)
- Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2005) (deference to IJ demeanor findings)
- Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) (testimonial vagueness cannot support adverse credibility unless examiner sought details)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate affects credibility)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight of applicant’s evidence lies largely within IJ discretion)
- Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007) (corroboration and evidentiary weight principles)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (credibility finding dispositive when all claims rest on same factual predicate)
- Jian Yun Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 409 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for remand for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Esposito v. INS, 987 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1993) (movant must allege facts showing competent counsel would have acted differently and resulting prejudice)
- Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2006) (demeanor findings more reliable when tied to inconsistent testimony)