Wu Lin v. Lynch
813 F.3d 122
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Wu Lin, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in Aug 2007 and gave border and credible-fear interviews in Sept 2007 asserting two bases for fear (helping women escape family‑planning procedures; opposing a girlfriend’s forced abortion).
- At his later asylum application and hearing, Lin abandoned those two accounts and instead claimed persecution for practicing Falun Gong; he explained the earlier false statements as coerced by smugglers (“snakeheads”).
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) credited Lin’s Falun Gong claim, accepted his explanation for the earlier false statements, and granted asylum based on testimony, demeanor, and corroborating documents.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, concluding the IJ committed “clear error” in crediting Lin’s explanations and credibility, and therefore denied asylum.
- The Second Circuit considered what standard governs judicial review when the BIA holds an IJ’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” and whether the BIA gave adequate reasons for rejecting the IJ’s credibility determination.
- The Court granted the petition, holding the BIA misapplied or gave insufficient explanation under the required “clear error” review and remanded for the BIA to either accept the IJ’s findings or provide a supportable basis for rejecting them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lin) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/BIA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper review of BIA’s conclusion that an IJ’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” | BIA must apply clear‑error standard deferentially and, if it rejects the IJ, must give adequate reasons for that conclusion | BIA applied clear‑error review and concluded IJ committed clear error in crediting Lin’s testimony | Court: Review of BIA’s application of legal standard is de novo as to adequacy of BIA’s reasoning; remand because BIA failed to provide sufficient support for finding clear error |
| Whether BIA impermissibly engaged in its own factfinding (vs. properly finding clear error) | BIA’s reversal improperly substitutes its credibility finding for the IJ’s without adequate explanation | BIA maintains IJ’s credibility finding was clearly erroneous based on implausibility and inconsistencies | Court: BIA’s explanation was insufficient and in places relied on misstated or unsupported inconsistencies; remand required |
| Adequacy of BIA’s reasons to reject IJ’s acceptance of Lin’s explanation for prior false statements | Lin argued his recantations and explanation (fear of snakeheads, subsequent legal advice) were plausible and supported IJ’s credibility finding | BIA argued the snakehead explanation was implausible and that Lin’s statements were inconsistent and not believable | Held: BIA did not adequately show why IJ’s reasons were unreasonable or how errors were “clear”; must provide specific, cogent reasons on remand |
| Standard for appellate review when BIA applies “clear error” to IJ findings | Lin: Court should ensure BIA applied clear‑error properly and did not substitute its own factfinding | DHS/BIA: BIA’s application of clear‑error is entitled to deference as the agency charged with immigration matters | Court: The question whether BIA’s explanation suffices is a legal issue reviewed de novo; but court cannot itself re‑weigh facts—it must ensure BIA did not impermissibly factfind and that its reasoning justifies reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (explains the classic "definite and firm conviction" formulation of "clearly erroneous")
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (clarifies limits of clear‑error review and deference to factfinder’s plausible account)
- Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (distinguishes court/court clear‑error review from court/agency review and relative deference)
- Fen Yong Chen v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services, 470 F.3d 509 (2d Cir.) (remanding where BIA substituted its own credibility analysis without explaining why IJ erred)
- Kabba v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1239 (2d Cir.) (IJ’s acceptance of an applicant’s explanation is a factual finding entitled to deference)
- Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62 (2d Cir.) (reversed BIA for impermissible factfinding when contradicting IJ without adequate basis)
- McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19 (cited on clear‑error standard in appellate context)
- Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (example of Supreme Court applying detailed analysis in clear‑error review)