Jie Chen, et al v. Todd Blanche – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency's adverse credibility finding which was dispositive of the asylum and withholding claims.
Standard: substantial evidence
Vote: The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument.
Practical effect: The denial of the petition affirms the agency's adverse credibility finding, effectively barring the petitioners from asylum and related relief based on the inconsistencies in their testimony and lack of corroborating evidence.

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging adverse credibility findings in an immigration case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that the petitioners provided inconsistent testimony regarding their asylum claims.

Background

Petitioners Jie, Yaxian, and Jiayun Chen, natives and citizens of China, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. The agency denied relief based on adverse credibility findings regarding the petitioners’ testimony.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the agency’s findings for substantial evidence, noting that to reverse, the evidence must compel a contrary conclusion. The court found substantial evidence supporting the adverse credibility determination based on three factors: inconsistencies between Jie’s two asylum applications, inconsistencies between the spouses’ testimony regarding their purpose for leaving China, and a lack of independent evidence that Yaxian had an abortion. The court emphasized that even minor inconsistencies may impact credibility under the REAL ID Act and that the inconsistencies concerned the heart of the petitioners’ claims.

To reverse the BIA, we must determine that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.

Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017)

What it means going forward

The denial of the petition affirms the agency’s adverse credibility finding, effectively barring the petitioners from asylum and related relief based on the inconsistencies in their testimony and lack of corroborating evidence.