Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Xiu Feng Dong v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services
Citation: 168 F. App'x 467Docket: No. 04-2802-AG
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; February 21, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Xiu Feng Dong’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his asylum and withholding of removal application. Dong, a Chinese national, claimed persecution from China's family planning authorities, alleging threats of sterilization and forced IUD insertion on his wife, particularly after the birth of their first child. The IJ found Dong not credible, citing significant inconsistencies between his testimony and that of his wife. Specifically, his wife’s conflicting statements about whether Dong accompanied her when fleeing from authorities undermined his credibility. Additionally, discrepancies arose regarding the notification process for the IUD insertion, as Dong failed to mention a written notice that his wife claimed to have received. These inconsistencies provided substantial evidence supporting the IJ's adverse credibility determination, thereby justifying the denial of Dong's claims. Dong's claim of potential forced sterilization or persecution due to having two children, including one born in the United States, was deemed speculative, referencing Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). Despite presenting State Department reports on China's family planning policy, Dong did not provide sufficient evidence that such policies would specifically affect him. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Dong’s asylum and withholding of removal claims based on alternative grounds that were deemed sustainable, suggesting that a remand would yield the same outcome. Consequently, the petition for review is denied, any previously granted stay of removal is vacated, and any motions for a stay of removal or requests for oral argument are denied as moot, following relevant procedural rules.