Zhang v. Wilkinson
20-9596
| 10th Cir. | Jul 16, 2021Background
- Petitioner Jinhui Zhang, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. in October 2015 without valid entry documents and expressed fear of return; an asylum officer found his fear credible.
- He conceded removability, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming religious persecution for attending an underground Christian church and alleging arrest, detention, and physical abuse by Chinese authorities.
- At the IJ hearing Petitioner testified but the asylum officer did not; the IJ considered the officer’s interview notes and found Petitioner not credible based on: inconsistencies between his credible-fear interview, written application, and in-court testimony; inconsistent testimony on direct vs cross; and past willingness to lie to obtain immigration benefits.
- The IJ viewed the later, more detailed accounts of physical abuse as an apparent embellishment that arose after the credible-fear interview.
- The BIA affirmed, concluding the adverse-credibility finding was not clearly erroneous and that even without consideration of past misrepresentations the IJ provided sufficient reasons for disbelief.
- The Tenth Circuit denied review, applying the substantial-evidence standard and finding the BIA’s decision supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/use of asylum-officer interview notes | IJ erred by relying on notes when asylum officer did not testify; notes incomplete and Petitioner could not cross-examine the officer | Immigration hearings have relaxed evidentiary rules; notes are probative and their use was fundamentally fair; Petitioner gave no specifics about what cross-examination would show | Use of the notes was permissible; not fundamentally unfair, and IJ’s credibility finding rested on additional in-court inconsistencies as well |
| Reliance on Petitioner’s past willingness to lie | IJ/BIA improperly relied on past misrepresentations to immigration officials to discredit Petitioner | Past misrepresentations are a proper factor, but even omitting them the IJ provided sufficient, independent bases for adverse credibility | Even excluding past misrepresentations, substantial evidence supports the adverse-credibility finding; thus any error was harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence to deny asylum/withholding/CAT given adverse credibility | Testimony and documentary record were sufficient; inconsistencies explainable | Inconsistencies and failure to explain them undermined credibility and thus petitioner failed to meet burdens for asylum/withholding/CAT | Substantial evidence supports denial of relief because Petitioner’s testimony was not credible and other evidence was insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) (pro se filings liberally construed but court not advocate)
- Bauge v. I.N.S., 7 F.3d 1540 (10th Cir. 1993) (immigration hearings apply relaxed evidentiary rules; evidence admissible if probative and fundamentally fair)
- Diallo v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2006) (affirming adverse-credibility determination when petitioner had opportunity to explain inconsistencies but failed to do so)
- Gutierrez-Orozco v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2016) (review of BIA decisions limited to issues addressed by BIA; factual findings reviewed under substantial-evidence standard)