TAIFAN JIN v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-15No. No. 18-73422

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied. The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

Two Chinese nationals sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief after being denied by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. The applicants claimed persecution based on religious faith and political activities, but their accounts contained significant gaps and contradictions on key facts underlying their claims. The court found that the immigration agency properly identified material inconsistencies in their statements, gave them chances to explain the discrepancies, and reasonably concluded their explanations were not believable.

Without credible testimony from the applicants, the remaining evidence—including general country reports about human rights problems in China—was insufficient to meet the legal standards for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. One applicant's argument about translation errors did not persuade the court that a more accurate translation would have changed the outcome.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Credibility determinations in asylum cases based on material inconsistencies and omissions
Whether inconsistencies go to the heart of the persecution claim
Standard for establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal absent credible testimony
Sufficiency of evidence for Convention Against Torture relief claims

Procedural posture

The applicants appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of the immigration judge's denial of their asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief applications.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Taifan Jin and Yinghua Yin, natives and citizens of China, seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review.

The agencys adverse credibility determination as to Yin is supported by substantial evidence because her asylum application and her testimony contained material omissions and inconsistencies that went “to the heart” of her claim that she was persecuted based on her Christian faith, including inconsistencies regarding her 2001 arrest for participating in a house church. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003)). Substantial evidence also supports the agencys adverse credibility determination as to Jin because his asylum application and testimony were inconsistent on the circumstances of his first arrest, which went “to the heart” of his claim that Chinese authorities persecuted him for assisting North Korean refugees. See id.; Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Jin fails to demonstrate how “a better translation would have made a difference in the outcome of [his] hearing.” See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Because the agency gave both Yin and Jin an opportunity to explain these inconsistencies and found their explanations implausible, substantial evidence supports the agencys adverse credibility determinations. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1091. Absent Yin and Jins credible testimony, the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal.

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys decision to deny Yin and Jins claims for CAT relief because their non-credible testimony and the country conditions reports describing generalized human rights abuses in China do not compel the conclusion that Yin and Jin are more likely than not to suffer torture if removed to China. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Kasnecovic v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION DENIED.