Baolin Chang and Sha Chang, natives and citizens of China, sought review of a final order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA had dismissed an appeal of an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The core dispute centered on the agency's adverse credibility finding, which was based on the petitioners' decision to voluntarily return to China after Baolin had allegedly been arrested and beaten there. The petitioners argued that this finding was erroneous and sought a remand to correct defects in the hearing transcript.
The panel unanimously concludes that the agency provided specific and cogent reasons for its adverse credibility determination. The court cites Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that a petitioner's voluntary return to their country of origin may be considered in rendering such a finding. Specifically, the agency noted that the petitioners returned to China after Baolin's alleged persecutorial arrest and beating. The court explains that this conduct undermines the petitioners' assertions that they feared persecution, as it suggests they did not face the dangers they claimed. The court emphasizes that only the most extraordinary circumstances justify overturning an adverse credibility determination, and none are present here. Furthermore, because the non-testimonial evidence in the record is insufficient to independently establish the petitioners' claims, the adverse credibility determination is dispositive. Regarding the request to remand for transcript corrections, the court denies the petition because the petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to that specific request.
The petition for review is denied, leaving the removal order in effect. The decision reinforces the legal principle that voluntary return to a home country can be fatal to an asylum claim if the petitioner lacks independent corroborating evidence. Additionally, the ruling clarifies that requests to correct transcript defects must be raised and exhausted at the administrative level before the Ninth Circuit will consider them.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download