Quao Lin Dong v. Attorney General of the United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6048
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Quao Lin Dong, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. without valid documents in May 2000 and was detained; she sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on alleged past persecution under China's one-child policy.
- Dong alleged forced IUD insertion, a 1997 abortion after pregnancy, and subsequent flight; her husband allegedly backfilled events in his asylum application with inconsistencies.
- Dong produced corroborating evidence (mother-in-law letter, hospital certificates, medical records, husband’s travel documents) but did not secure her husband’s live testimony or affidavit addressing a key date inconsistency.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) relied on Abdulai v. Ashcroft to require corroboration from Dong’s husband to resolve discrepancies.
- Dong’s evidence also supported future-persecution and CAT claims; the BIA affirmed denial of those claims.
- The Third Circuit remands for proper Abdulai-based analysis on past-persecution corroboration while affirming the BIA’s denial of future-persecution and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration standard applied correctly? | Dong | Dong relied on Abdulai; IJ/BIA misapplied three-step test | Remand for Abdulai-based analysis |
| Was husband’s testimony essential for past persecution claim? | Dong argues not central given other corroboration | IJ/BIA treated husband’s testimony as necessary corroboration | Remand; proper Abdulai analysis required |
| Adequacy of evidence for future persecution/CAT denial? | Evidence insufficiently shows future risk | Record supports no pattern of persecution or torture risk | Affirmed denial of future persecution and CAT relief |
| Impact of absence of husband at merits hearing on credibility? | Cultural/demographic factors; absence not fatal | Hearing absence undermines credibility | No reversal; issue subsumed under Abdulai framework |
| Scope of fact-finding on corroboration steps three and two? | IJ should consider hospital certs, medical records, letters | Evidence insufficient without husband corroboration | Remand to properly weigh all corroborating evidence under Abdulai |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) (three-step Abdulai corroboration framework; central facts require corroboration when reasonably available)
- Sandie v. Att'y Gen., 562 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2009) (adequate notice and opportunity to supply corroboration; review of IJ/BIA rationale)
- Chukwu v. Att'y Gen., 484 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007) (needful Abdulai step to identify corroboration-worthy facts; notice to applicant)
- Liu v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 555 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence standard; parallel to past-persecution corroboration issues)
- Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007) (BIA corroboration (central to claim) assessed under Abdulai framework)