Suhua Qiu v. Jefferson Sessions
13-74294
| 9th Cir. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Petitioner Suhua Qiu sought asylum; an immigration judge found his application frivolous and made an adverse credibility finding based largely on two documents (a bail receipt and termination letter) that were found to be counterfeit.
- The Department of Homeland Security’s Forensic Document Laboratory reported the two documents were produced by the same equipment, supporting counterfeit findings.
- Qiu repeatedly maintained the documents’ authenticity at a merits hearing and to the Board.
- The immigration judge read a written warning about frivolous applications to Qiu in his native language; the government moved to reopen after receiving the forensic report and a hearing was set three years later.
- The Board affirmed the adverse credibility determination, upheld the frivolousness finding, and denied Qiu’s motion to reopen (which relied on alleged ineffective assistance by prior counsel).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility determination | Qiu contends the Board erred in finding him not credible. | Board/IJ relied on counterfeit documents and Qiu’s insistence on their authenticity. | Affirmed; substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding. |
| Frivolousness procedural adequacy (notice) | Notice was inadequate. | Written warning was read in Qiu’s native language and sufficed. | Affirmed; notice requirement met. |
| Frivolousness substantive showing (deliberate fabrication) | Qiu denies fabrication of material elements (past persecution). | Bail receipt and termination letter were integral and counterfeit, supporting fabrication. | Affirmed; preponderance supports deliberate fabrication of past-persecution claim. |
| Motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel | Prior counsel’s ineffectiveness justified reopening; evidence now presented. | Evidence of counsel issues was available earlier; reopening not warranted. | Denied; Board did not abuse discretion because evidence was previously available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (substantial-evidence review of adverse credibility determinations and totality-of-the-circumstances test)
- Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant must identify compelling evidence to overturn credibility finding)
- Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for overturning credibility findings)
- Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2011) (procedural requirements and preponderance standard for frivolousness findings)
- Cheema v. Holder, 693 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2012) (written warning on asylum forms can satisfy notice requirement when understood)
- Meza‑Vallejos v. Holder, 669 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for motions to reopen)
- Ontiveros‑Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (definition of Board abuse of discretion)