Longcai Chen, a native and citizen of China, sought asylum and withholding of removal in the United States, alleging persecution based on his Christian faith and his political opposition to China's coercive population control policies. Specifically, Chen claimed his wife was coerced into a tubal ligation surgery and that he faced religious persecution. An Immigration Judge denied his application, a decision upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA concluded that Chen was not credible due to several factors, including false statements made in a 2016 visa application, his voluntary return to China after the alleged surgery, and inconsistent testimony about his church attendance. Chen petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of this order.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, a standard under which the agency's determinations are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court affirmed the adverse credibility determination, noting that 'lies and fraudulent documents when they are no longer necessary for the immediate escape from persecution do support an adverse [credibility] inference.' The court cited Chen's misrepresentations in a 2016 visa application regarding his education, employment, and family ties as deliberate lies that counted as substantial evidence. Additionally, the court agreed with the BIA that Chen's voluntary return to China after his wife's alleged surgery supported the inference of non-credibility. The court also noted that Chen's testimony regarding church attendance was inconsistent, stating that 'An applicant will naturally be more likely to remember and relate the facts that are important to his claim.' The court applied the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,' meaning false in one thing, false in everything. Even without credible testimony, Chen could have succeeded with documentary evidence, but the court found substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that his wife's letter was insufficiently reliable and that his country conditions evidence did not compel a finding of well-founded fear of future persecution.
The denial of Chen's petition means the BIA's order denying asylum and withholding of removal stands. Chen remains subject to removal proceedings as the court found no error in the agency's adverse credibility determination or its conclusion that Chen failed to meet his burden of proof through documentary evidence. The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's strict application of the substantial evidence standard in cases where applicants have made false statements to immigration authorities.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download