Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ze Sheng Jin v. Holder
Citation: 331 F. App'x 827Docket: No. 08-4367-ag
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; June 5, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Petitioners Ze Sheng Jin and Ren Hua Li, citizens of China, sought review of a BIA order affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of their asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief applications. The BIA's August 13, 2008 order upheld the IJ's October 17, 2006 decision, which included adverse credibility determinations against the petitioners. The court reviews the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, focusing on factual findings under a substantial evidence standard. The IJ found Jin's testimony vague and evasive, particularly regarding his demeanor and inconsistencies about a religious service and police visits to their home. These credibility issues were not challenged by the petitioners, thus reinforcing the IJ's findings. However, the IJ's decision faced scrutiny regarding claims that Jin's credibility was undermined by his choice to resettle in the U.S. rather than Korea, and the interpretation of medical records provided. The court noted that seeking a stable and economically promising environment does not diminish one's claims of persecution. Additionally, discrepancies in medical records may arise from the context of oppressive regimes, and the absence of specific details in such records does not necessarily invalidate claims of abuse. Despite recognizing these errors, the court ultimately upheld the IJ's adverse credibility determination, which was supported by substantial evidence. As a result, the petitioners' claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief were denied due to the reliance on their credibility. The petition for review was denied, any stay of removal previously granted was vacated, and pending motions related to the stay were dismissed as moot. Requests for oral argument were also denied.