Yang Chen v. U.S. Attorney General
672 F. App'x 904
11th Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Yang Chen, a Chinese national, seeks review of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- IJ and BIA found Chen not credible based on multiple inconsistencies in his application, credible-fear interview, testimony, and supporting letters regarding dates and details of arrest, beatings, phone calls, and injuries.
- Chen submitted a warrant, a letter from his uncle, and a counselor’s assessment diagnosing possible memory and trauma-related disorders; he provided no medical records corroborating injuries.
- Chen argued entitlement to asylum based on persecution for practicing in an unregistered church and also raised (1) one-child-policy persecution, (2) improper authentication of asylum officer notes, and (3) IJ bias. The BIA found some arguments waived.
- The BIA denied Chen’s motion to remand for new mental-health evidence, treating it as a motion to reopen and finding the evidence neither unavailable earlier nor sufficiently probative to establish credible memory loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over unexhausted claims | Chen: one-child-policy, authentication, IJ bias reviewable | Gov: Chen failed to exhaust before BIA | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on those three arguments |
| Credibility of asylum claim | Chen: arrested, beaten, fears future persecution as member of unregistered church | Gov: multiple material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration undermine credibility | Court: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding; asylum denied |
| Past persecution / well-founded fear | Chen: single beating, detention, and post-release interview show persecution and future risk | Gov: single incident without serious injury and country evidence do not show persecution or reasonable fear | Held: Even crediting testimony, facts do not compel past persecution or reasonable probability of future persecution; relief denied |
| Motion to remand / reopen based on mental-health evidence | Chen: counselor’s assessment explains memory lapses and supports credibility | Gov: evidence was available earlier, provisional, and not sufficiently probative | Held: BIA did not abuse discretion in denying remand; evidence not material or newly unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.) (exhaustion and sufficiency of administrative presentation to preserve claim)
- Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir.) (preservation requirements for evidentiary objections)
- Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required for jurisdiction)
- Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir.) (corroboration and credibility standards)
- Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir.) (credibility and burden to compel a reasonable factfinder)
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir.) (definition and examples of past persecution)
- Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.) (requirements for showing reasonable possibility of future persecution)
- Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir.) (withholding/CAT standards more stringent than asylum)
- Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 643 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (treatment of motions to remand as motions to reopen and standards for new evidence)