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.
Yong Ying Shi v. Holder
Citation: 313 F. App'x 389Docket: No. 06-4752-AG
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; March 2, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
The petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision regarding Yong Ying Shi, a Chinese national, is denied. Shi sought to overturn a BIA order from September 15, 2006, which upheld an Immigration Judge (IJ) decision from April 13, 2005, denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA's summary affirmation requires review of the IJ's decision as the final agency ruling. The court applies the substantial evidence standard to the IJ's factual findings and reviews legal questions de novo. The IJ found Shi's credibility lacking, noting his hesitant and unconvincing demeanor. Shi's claims of persecution due to opposition to village election results were inconsistent with his statements during an airport interview, where he did not mention these claims, instead attributing his entry into the U.S. to persecution based on support for Falun Gong. This inconsistency was deemed material and detrimental to his credibility. Additional credibility concerns arose from a letter from Shi's neighbor, which did not reference any prior governmental issues before 2001, despite Shi's claims of an arrest and beating in 1998. Shi could not explain this discrepancy. The IJ was justified in expecting corroborative evidence for Shi's claims and found his explanations for not providing such evidence insufficient. Consequently, the absence of corroboration further weakened Shi's already questionable testimony. An Immigration Judge (IJ) is not required to accept an applicant's explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations are compelling. Although the IJ made errors, remanding the case would not be productive as it is likely the IJ would still deny Shi's claims. Shi's arguments for withholding of removal and CAT relief are based on the same past persecution claims as his asylum request. The IJ's adverse credibility finding regarding Shi's past persecution claims is upheld, leading to the failure of his arguments. Consequently, the petition for review is denied, and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the motion for a stay of removal are both dismissed as moot. The IJ found inconsistencies in Shi's testimony about using family land as collateral for a loan, which contradicted a statement in his asylum application regarding the confiscation of that land in 1999. The IJ’s inference linking the confiscated land to the property used as collateral was not adequately supported, and Shi was not given the chance to clarify this contradiction.