Yan Chen v. Sessions
698 F. App'x 2
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioners A. Le Wu and Sheng Jian Ye, Chinese nationals, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief claiming fear of persecution tied to having U.S.-born children in violation of China’s population control policies.
- An Immigration Judge granted asylum; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed that decision on June 16, 2010.
- Wu filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings, which the BIA denied on December 17, 2010.
- Petitioners submitted letters from relatives and a friend alleging forcible sterilizations; the letters were unsworn and lacked detail about force used.
- Petitioners also sought to introduce additional evidence that they had not submitted to the IJ; the BIA declined to consider it as untimely.
- Petitioners petitioned the Second Circuit for review of the BIA’s reversal and denial of the motion to reopen; the Court denied the petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners established an objectively reasonable, well‑founded fear of persecution based on China’s population control policies | Petitioners argued the birth of their U.S.-born children exposed them to persecution (forced sterilization) and submitted letters alleging forcible sterilizations of acquaintances | Government argued evidence was insufficient and unreliable to show a well‑founded fear; letters were unsworn, from interested witnesses, and lacked detail | Denied relief: court upheld BIA that petitioners failed to meet burden for a well‑founded fear of persecution |
| Whether the BIA erred by giving little weight to unsworn letters from interested witnesses | Wu argued letters corroborated risk of forced sterilization and should be credited | Government argued such letters are of little weight when unsworn and lacking detail | Held: court agreed with BIA and cited precedent declining to credit unsworn, interested‑witness letters |
| Whether the BIA abused discretion in refusing to consider evidence not timely submitted to the IJ | Wu argued new evidence supported reopening and should be considered | Government argued the evidence was untimely and the agency properly declined to consider it | Held: BIA did not err in refusing to consider untimely evidence |
| Whether the BIA’s de novo review of the IJ’s factual findings was proper | Wu challenged BIA reversal of IJ asylum grant | Government supported BIA reversal based on record deficiencies | Held: Court found no error in BIA’s de novo review and affirmed reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (standards and precedents for asylum fear and evidentiary weight of corroboration)
- Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (applicable standards of review in similar immigration contexts)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (deference to agency decision to afford little weight to unsworn, interested‑witness letters)
- Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187 (2d Cir.) (agency may decline to consider evidence not timely submitted to the IJ)