Tie Xia Chen v. Holder
782 F.3d 373
7th Cir.2015Background
- Tie Xia Chen, a Chinese national, admitted entering the U.S. in 2005 and conceded removability; he applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief based on persecution for violating China’s one-child policy.
- Chen testified he and his wife had two children; police detained and beat him, demanded his wife be sterilized or pay fines, and he fled after being released; wife and daughter hid in China and son lived with Chen’s parents.
- Chen submitted corroborating evidence (photos, parental and spousal letters, notices from birth-control office, and birth certificates), but DHS’s Forensic Document Laboratory found the son’s birth certificate counterfeit; a replacement was also found counterfeit.
- The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief, citing several alleged inconsistencies in Chen’s testimony and discounted corroboration (including the fraudulent birth certificates and unauthenticated notices); no explicit adverse credibility finding was made.
- Chen moved to reopen before the Board, alleging ineffective assistance by two prior attorneys who, he argued, failed to correct a mistranslation, explain evidence issues, or present available corroboration; the Board found counsel’s performance substandard but denied reopening on prejudice grounds, focusing only on the fraudulent birth certificates.
- The Seventh Circuit granted review, concluding the Board ignored potentially meritorious ineffective-assistance arguments and remanded for the Board to assess whether counsel’s errors were prejudicial when considered in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chen received ineffective assistance of counsel that contributed to the IJ’s adverse evidentiary findings | Counsel failed to submit or adequately explain evidence (mistranslation, Spanish translation, age-counting, meeting chronology, authentication) and misled Chen about the forensic finding | Board conceded substandard performance but treated certain failures as not prejudicial because of fraudulent certificates | Board abused discretion by not addressing these specific arguments; remand required for full prejudice analysis |
| Whether knowingly submitting fraudulent evidence definitively defeats asylum claim | Fraud alone does not automatically compel denial; IJ may but need not render adverse credibility; counsel’s failures may explain other inconsistencies | Board concluded fraudulent birth certificates meant Chen’s claim would fail regardless of other issues | Court held the Board erred in treating fraud as dispositive without evaluating if competent counsel could have avoided the need for or reliance on those documents |
| Whether lack of corroboration (birth certificate) was fatal when other corroboration existed | Other corroboration (witness testimony, letters, photos) could suffice if presented and argued properly; birth certificate unobtainable for unregistered child | Government argued absence of valid birth certificate was central and fatal to Chen’s claim | Court found the Board overlooked alternative corroboration and failed to consider whether competent counsel could have obviated the IJ’s corroboration requirement; remand required |
| Whether the Board adequately explained denial of motion to reopen | Chen argued Board ignored many specific, potentially dispositive arguments and evidence raised in the motion | Board focused narrowly on fraudulent documents and did not analyze each contention | Court held the Board abused its discretion by not addressing potentially meritorious arguments and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanaj v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 694 (7th Cir.) (fraudulent evidence permits but does not compel adverse credibility finding)
- Kourski v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir.) (forged evidence does not necessarily disprove an applicant’s underlying claim)
- Moosa v. Holder, 644 F.3d 380 (7th Cir.) (BIA abuses discretion when it ignores potentially meritorious arguments)
- Kebe v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 855 (7th Cir.) (remand required when BIA/IJ fail to consider essential arguments or evidence)
- Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241 (3d Cir.) (remand where BIA’s prejudice analysis on ineffective-assistance claim was insufficient)
- Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir.) (BIA abused discretion by issuing an incomplete opinion denying reopening for ineffective assistance)
- Fadiga v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 488 F.3d 142 (3d Cir.) (counsel’s failures can be prejudicial where credibility doubts stem from inconsistencies attributable to counsel)