Yuqin Gao v. Merrick Garland
16-70847
| 9th Cir. | May 17, 2022Background:
- Yuqin Gao, a Chinese national, appealed the BIA’s dismissal of an IJ’s denial of her asylum claim alleging forced sterilization and persecution for religion/political opinion.
- Gao testified she underwent involuntary sterilization, was arrested/detained for participating in a Christian house church, and had a son named Yunfeng Gao; inconsistencies arose about dates and parentage.
- The IJ found Gao not credible: she could not describe basic details of the sterilization, gave inconsistent testimony compared to her asylum application, and admitted leaving China on a valid passport and visa despite claiming to be a fugitive.
- The IJ also relied on a lack of corroborating evidence (medical records, employment and termination records) to discredit Gao’s claims.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination; the Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and affirmed in relevant part.
- Gao failed to administratively exhaust claims for withholding of removal, CAT protection, and a Ren v. Holder procedural claim; the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider those unexhausted claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility determination — supported by record? | Gao: her testimony and evidence establish persecution and forced sterilization. | Government: material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration undermine credibility. | Substantial evidence supports the IJ/BIA adverse credibility finding. |
| Forced sterilization/asylum eligibility | Gao: she was involuntarily sterilized and persecuted for religion/politics, warranting asylum. | Government: without credible testimony or corroboration, record does not compel relief. | Record insufficient to establish involuntary sterilization or religious refugee status; asylum denied. |
| Materiality of inconsistencies | Gao: discrepancies are trivial (e.g., typographical or minor). | Government: inconsistencies concerned facts central to persecution claims and were not trivial. | Inconsistencies were material and relevant to credibility. |
| Jurisdiction over unexhausted claims (withholding, CAT, Ren procedure) | Gao: raised those claims in this court. | Government: Gao failed to raise them to the BIA, so they are unexhausted. | Court lacks jurisdiction to consider unexhausted claims; those claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016) (substantial-evidence review of factual findings and credibility determinations)
- Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2020) (lack of detail in testimony is relevant to credibility)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing trivial errors from material inconsistencies)
- Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2020) (inconsistencies that are "at issue" are material to asylum claims)
- Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2017) (lack of corroboration supports adverse credibility and denial of relief)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before judicial review)
- Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (procedural rule referenced but Gao did not exhaust this claim)