Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324

Y.C.—Chinese-born, Korean descent—applies for asylum, withholding, and CAT based on pro-democracy activities after arriving in the United States, including CAD membership and Beijing Spring article.
X.W.—Chinese-born—applies for asylum, withholding, and CAT based on protest activity and CDP membership after arriving in the United States; evidence includes internet presence and CDP writings.
IJ Horn denied Y.C.’s asylum, withholding, and CAT; BIA remanded, then on remand denied, with focus on whether Chinese authorities would be aware of Y.C.’s U.S. activities.
IJ Vomacka denied X.W.’s asylum as untimely; found no credible basis to grant withholding or CAT reliance on CDP activities; BIA affirmed pretermission and denied/removed merits.
BIA concluded Y.C. failed to show Beijing Spring article or candlelight vigils would alert Chinese authorities; found no evidence of awareness or likely persecution if returned.
Court reviews BIA/IAF decisions under the substantial evidence standard; asylum timeliness and credibility issues are central to X.W., with limited jurisdiction over asylum after pretermission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Y.C.’s future persecution evidence	Y.C. argues authorities are aware and would target her for pro-democracy activity.	CAD activity and vigils lack solid evidence of govt awareness or targeting.	Insufficient evidence of awareness or likely persecution; denial affirmed
Y.C. sufficiency of evidence of future persecution	Y.C. asserts Beijing Spring article and candlelight vigils show risk.	No corroboration; uncertain circulation; no direct link to persecution.	No well-founded fear established; asylum/withholding denied
X.W. timeliness of asylum application	Changed circumstances could excuse late filing; delay due to CDP involvement and grandfather’s death.	Untimely filing outside one year; delay unreasonable; no excusing change of circumstances.	Asylum claim dismissed for untimeliness; jurisdiction limited to legal claims
X.W. admissibility of withholding and credibility	Credibility findings should be revisited; evidence shows risk from CDP activities.	Adverse credibility upheld; record insufficient to prove likelihood of persecution.	Withholding denied; lack of substantial evidence of a clear probability of persecution
BIA’s adjudication and appellate factfinding	BIA engaged in improper factfinding contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv).	No improper factfinding; full review appropriate under standard de novo review for merits.	No reversible due process violation; no jurisdictional basis to overturn on this ground

Jigme Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (review of IJ and BIA when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
Shi Jie Ge v. Holder, 588 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2009) (legal standard for reviewing BIA findings and credibility)
Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (well-founded fear and awareness requirement for asylum)
Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight of documentary evidence and corroboration standards)
Kyaw Zwar Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2006) (corroboration and weight of evidence in asylum cases)
Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011) (courts balance credibility and awareness in China asylum claims)