Yun Xian Chen-Liu v. Sessions
697 F. App'x 68
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Yun Xian Chen-Liu, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on alleged family-planning persecution in China (sterilization attempt and fines for out-of-wedlock births).
- An IJ denied all relief for failure to prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution; the BIA affirmed on July 14, 2016. Chen-Liu petitioned this Court for review.
- The agency found Chen-Liu’s testimony inconsistent on key points: whether she was sterilized, her date of birth, and whether she injured her foot or knee during a scuffle with family‑planning officials.
- The IJ discounted unauthenticated post-departure notarial birth certificates and an unsworn, interested-party letter from Chen‑Liu’s mother, and noted Chen‑Liu failed to obtain reasonably available corroboration (e.g., school records or a letter from the ex‑boyfriend’s sister).
- The IJ also rejected Chen‑Liu’s household-registration explanation for inconsistent residence claims and found no evidence supporting alleged fines or injuries; all relief was denied because the family‑planning claim failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chen‑Liu met burden for asylum by credible testimony alone | Testimony was credible and specific enough to show past persecution (sterilization attempt, fine, injury) | Testimony had inconsistencies; corroboration reasonably required and not provided | Agency reasonably required corroboration; petitioner failed to meet burden; asylum denied |
| Whether documentary evidence of children (birth certificates) was sufficiently reliable | Notarial birth certificates and family statements prove she has two China‑born children | Certificates were issued after departure, unauthenticated, based on family statements; unreliable | IJ permissibly discounted those documents as unreliable |
| Whether corroboration (letters, school records) was reasonably available | Corroboration was unnecessary because testimony was credible | More reliable evidence (school records, letter from ex‑boyfriend’s sister) was available but not produced | Petitioner could have obtained corroboration; failure to do so supported denial |
| Whether petitioner exhausted CAT claim | Challenge to asylum necessarily challenged CAT denial (lower asylum burden) | BIA/Government argued failure to exhaust CAT separately | Court agreed exhaustion argument is misplaced; merits denial stands because asylum standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir.) (agency opinions reviewed for completeness)
- Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir.) (corroboration standards for asylum testimony)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (agency discretion in weighing documentary evidence)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (inconsistent statements burden on petitioner)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (weight of unsworn, interested‑party statements)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (connection between asylum, withholding, and CAT when based on same claim)
- Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.) (overruling aspects of BIA decisions on evidentiary weight)