Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; October 19, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
You Ke Chen, a Chinese national from Fujian, applied for asylum in the U.S., claiming threats from family-planning officials who sought to sterilize him and forcibly abort his wife’s pregnancy due to violations of China's one-child policy. His asylum petition was denied by both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which cited credibility issues stemming from inconsistencies in Chen's testimony during his credible-fear interview and his administrative hearing.
Chen's initial account described a confrontation with officials who threatened him when they sought his wife after learning of her pregnancy. He claimed they physically assaulted him and threatened sterilization, prompting his flight to the U.S. However, during his asylum hearing, Chen's narrative shifted; he testified that his wife had undergone an abortion and he sought asylum as her spouse. He presented a letter from his wife and a certificate indicating the abortion occurred on March 29, 2006.
The IJ denied the asylum application, noting inconsistencies in Chen's testimony and a lack of corroborating evidence to support his claims, particularly concerning the alleged involuntary nature of his wife's abortion. The BIA upheld the IJ's decision, emphasizing major discrepancies, such as Chen's conflicting statements about his son's age and the number of officials involved in the alleged attack. The BIA also dismissed the abortion certificate as evidence of an involuntary abortion, citing a State Department report indicating such certificates are issued only for voluntary procedures. The BIA's detailed order was reviewed independently, affirming the IJ's adverse credibility finding.
An applicant's credibility is assessed based on the totality of circumstances, including both statements and country condition reports from the Department of State. Adverse credibility findings are afforded substantial deference, which can severely impact asylum applications. Chen argues that his adverse credibility finding is unfounded, claiming the Immigration Judge (IJ) exaggerated minor discrepancies related to his son’s age and the number of assailants. He asserts that such inconsistencies are typical and that 'airport statements' are unreliable. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) addressed this argument, recognizing that while those inconsistencies alone might not warrant an adverse finding, the cumulative effect of other discrepancies justified it.
Chen also criticized the IJ’s request for corroborating evidence, but this issue is not under review since the BIA's decision did not depend on corroboration. He disputes the IJ's citation of Huang v. Gonzales regarding abortion certificates issued by Chinese hospitals, claiming that such certificates do not necessarily indicate voluntary abortions. Despite Chen submitting a letter from his wife asserting coercion, the BIA noted that reports from the State Department indicated these certificates are not issued for involuntary abortions and found Chen's evidence insufficient to contradict this. The BIA assigned little weight to his wife's letter, questioning its authenticity.
Lastly, Chen contends that the IJ neglected to consider his experiences of abuse by family-planning officials as evidence of past persecution and fear of future persecution. The IJ deemed Chen's testimony incredible, and he failed to present other evidence to challenge this finding. As a result, the petition is denied, with Chen primarily contesting the IJ's decision rather than the BIA's reasoned order.
