Ren Fu Wu v. Merrick Garland
20-71949
| 9th Cir. | Oct 15, 2021Background
- Petitioner Ren Fu Wu, a Chinese national, sought asylum and withholding of removal; the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial based on an adverse credibility finding; this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
- Wu claimed he and partner Xue Mei Zeng repeatedly attempted to conceive outside marriage for four years despite being of marriageable age and despite a prior forced abortion of Zeng when they were underage and unmarried.
- The IJ found Wu’s explanations (they didn’t care about marriage; he was busy/forgot) implausible and central to the claim.
- Wu gave inconsistent explanations for updating his household register: first saying rural residents don’t update records and later saying he updated in 2017 to add wife/children because the children were born then, despite marrying in 2014 and having children in 2016.
- Corroborating documents were found unreliable: an unnotarized abortion certificate with unclear provenance; Zeng’s letter not mentioning the certificate; household registers showing a wrong address and a move-in date of April 2017 inconsistent with Wu’s testimony (errors persisted in 2018 update).
- The IJ and BIA concluded substantial evidence supported an adverse credibility determination; the court held the petition for review was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of testimony about conceiving outside marriage | Wu: couple attempted to conceive for years; explanations for delayed marriage were truthful (didn’t care, busy) | Gov: explanations implausible in light of prior forced abortion and social context | Court: IJ reasonably found plaintiff’s account implausible; adverse credibility supported by substantial evidence |
| Timing and reasons for updating household register | Wu: updated in Apr 2017 for legibility; waited to add wife/children until children born so did all together | Gov: explanations inconsistent—couldn’t both not care about records and update for legibility; timing suspicious given marriage/children dates | Court: IJ reasonably found inconsistencies undermined credibility |
| Reliability of corroborating documents (abortion certificate, registers) | Wu: submitted certificate, Zeng’s letter, and registers as corroboration | Gov: certificate not notarized, provenance unclear; registers contain address and move-in date errors that persisted | Court: IJ properly deemed documents unreliable and dispositive to claim’s core facts |
| Duty to allow supplementation of corroboration after adverse credibility finding | Wu: IJ should have given notice and chance to correct docs or call family witnesses | Gov: once testimony is found not credible, IJ not required to afford notice or opportunity to cure | Court: Held IJ was not required to give additional notice/opportunity after credibility finding; denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669 (U.S. 2021) (substantial-evidence review of adverse credibility findings)
- Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822 (9th Cir. 2021) (implausibility can be dispositive in credibility analysis)
- Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2020) (court need not accept unconvincing explanations)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (implausibility may go to the heart of the asylum claim)
- Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2017) (standards for assessing documentary corroboration)
- Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2020) (no obligation to grant opportunity to cure corroboration after adverse credibility finding)