Qing Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23512
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lin is a Chinese national who illegally entered the U.S. in 2009 and faced removal proceedings that led to asylum, withholding, and CAT relief requests.
- The IJ denied relief and ordered removal; the Board affirmed, and Lin timely appealed.
- Credibility concerns centered on inconsistencies between Lin’s Border Patrol interview and later testimony, plus omissions about a forced abortion.
- Lin’s asylum claim relied on forced abortion and subsequent persecution; the government presented evidence downplaying enforcement of China’s family-planning policies.
- The IJ admitted additional evidence and the Board allowed it, but both found Lin not credible and denied relief.
- The court upheld the agency’s denial, affirming the adverse credibility finding and the lack of independent evidence of past persecution; due process challenges to late-submitted evidence were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility basis for asylum denial | Lin contends inconsistencies were not enough to negate credibility | Agency properly found inconsistencies and omissions showed unreliability | Agency credible-determination sustained |
| Independent evidence of past persecution | Lin had documents showing forced abortion and fines | State Dept. reports and corroboration are insufficient or unreliable | Agency’s decline of past persecution evidence affirmed |
| Impact of border/interview evidence on credibility | Border interview should be given less probative weight | Border interview factors valid for credibility review | Credibility upheld despite border-interview concerns |
| Due process in allowing supplemental evidence | Delay in evidence submission violated due process | IJs may set deadlines and hold additional hearings | No due-process violation; decision sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594 (4th Cir.2010) (deferential review of asylum eligibility; substantial evidence standard)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (well-founded fear standard for asylum cases; rebuttable by substantial evidence)
- Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505 (4th Cir.2007) (substantial-evidence standard; limits on re-weighing evidence)
- Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265 (4th Cir.2011) (corroborating evidence must be objective; credibility determinations upheld)
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.2004) (factors for reliability of airport/border interviews)
- Tang v. Attorney General, 578 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir.2009) (distinction between omissions and contradictions in border interviews)
- Moab v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 656 (7th Cir.2007) (caution in relying on airport/interview statements for credibility)
- Singh v. Holder, 699 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.2012) (border/airport interview reliability factors; corroboration importance)