Ying Sun v. Sessions
693 F. App'x 89
2d Cir.2017Background
- Ying Sun, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on alleged forced family‑planning coercion (IUD and abortion) and resistance to China’s policy.
- Immigration Judge denied relief after finding Sun not credible; BIA affirmed on Sept. 18, 2015. Sun petitioned for review to the Second Circuit.
- Key evidentiary issues: contradictions between Sun’s asylum application, hearing testimony, and documentary evidence (notably an abortion certificate dated 2012 that Sun said was from 1993).
- Sun gave inconsistent testimony about having an IUD, the timing and existence of an abortion certificate, and whether her son had ever been to the United States. She later described a visa application as fraudulent.
- Corroborating letters from family were given little weight by the IJ because writers were not cross‑examined and the documents did not rehabilitate credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence | Sun argued her testimony and documents were truthful and discrepancies were due to forgetfulness/confusion | Government argued multiple material inconsistencies and omissions justified adverse credibility | Court held substantial evidence supports adverse credibility based on inconsistencies and omissions |
| Whether documentary evidence (abortion certificate) corroborated Sun’s claims | Sun said the certificate dated from 1993 and corroborated her abortion claim | Government pointed to the certificate’s 2012 date and lack of plausible explanation | Court held the documentary discrepancy undercuts Sun’s credibility |
| Whether corroborating letters rehabilitated credibility | Sun relied on letters from husband and cousin to corroborate her story | Government argued letters are weak because authors weren’t cross‑examined and agency may discount them | Court held IJ reasonably afforded little weight to those letters |
| Whether adverse credibility foreclosed all relief (asylum, withholding, CAT) | Sun argued she merited relief on merits | Government argued all claims relied on same discredited factual predicate | Court held adverse credibility dispositive for all requested reliefs |
Key Cases Cited
- Yun‑Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (adverse credibility may rest on inconsistencies and omissions; defer to IJ credibility findings)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant’s failure to explain inconsistencies can justify adverse credibility)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (documentary evidence must actually rehabilitate testimony to overcome adverse credibility)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (material inconsistencies about past persecution can support finding of lack of credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (one adverse credibility finding can defeat asylum, withholding, and CAT when claims share the same factual predicate)
- Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012) (addressing treatment of documentary evidence and BIA precedents)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (deference to agency’s evaluation of documentary evidence)