Xiu Ying Wu v. U.S. Attorney General
712 F.3d 486
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Wu, a Chinese national, seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after being ordered removed in 2008.
- She alleges family-planning officials forced an abortion and harassed her for pregnancy outside wedlock.
- IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT, and issued adverse-credibility findings on five grounds.
- BIA dismissed Wu’s appeal but adopted IJ’s reasoning on credibility; CAT relief claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- On appeal, court reviews credibility under substantial-evidence standard and addresses whether reliance on country reports invalidly undercuts credibility.
- Court remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, vacating the adverse-credibility finding with respect to asylum/withholding.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAT relief denial is reviewable | Wu argues CAT denial merits review | BIA lacks jurisdiction to review CAT denial | Petition as to CAT relief dismissed for want of jurisdiction |
| Whether adverse credibility is supported by substantial evidence | Wu contends credibility was properly established | IJ relied on implausibility and country-profile inconsistencies | Reversed in part; remanded for credibility determination based on individualized evidence |
| Use of State Department country reports to assess credibility | Country Profile cannot override individual testimony | Country reports support credibility assessment | Improper to rely solely on country reports; require individualized analysis |
| Authentication of corroborating documents | Abortion certificate authenticity should bolster claim | Unauthenticated documents have limited probative value | Authority to discount documents; but not sole basis to deny credibility; remand appropriate |
| Standards governing credibility under REAL ID Act | Credibility must be grounded in specific, cogent reasons | BIA’s reasons sufficient under totality of circumstances | Court endorses need for specific cogent reasons; remand for reevaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Imelda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 611 F.3d 724 (11th Cir. 2010) (state reports may inform but cannot substitute for individualized analysis)
- Xia v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 608 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2010) (country reports cannot be sole basis to refute individual credibility)
- Dong v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2005) (separate approach in Dong contrasted with Xia/Imelda)
- Forgue v. Ashcroft, 401 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2005) (need for specific, cogent reasons in adverse credibility findings)
- Chacon-Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2005) (review of BIA and IJ conclusions in asylum appeals)
- Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2004) (acceptance of country reports in asylum determinations)