Xiaofen Wang v. United States Department of Justice
Docket: No. 04-5041-ag
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; June 6, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Xiaofen Wang's petition for review of a final order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was denied. The BIA upheld Immigration Judge (IJ) Paul A. DeFonzo's decision, which rejected her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) stipulates that courts lack jurisdiction over any claim that an asylum application was not filed within the one-year time limit. The REAL ID Act does not alter this jurisdictional limitation, as Wang's challenges were solely to factual determinations and the agency’s discretion in denying her application. When the BIA adopts the IJ's decision, judicial review focuses on the IJ's findings. The Court applies a substantial evidence standard to factual findings, including any adverse credibility determinations, which are treated as conclusive unless a reasonable adjudicator would reach a different conclusion. The IJ's adverse credibility determination was found to be well-supported by substantial evidence, with specific inconsistencies in Wang's claims being tied directly to her application basis. The IJ noted Wang's lack of corroborating evidence regarding her abortion and IUD insertions, as well as her failure to present a supporting witness, which contributed to the adverse credibility finding. The absence of such evidence can raise suspicion and is a valid basis for the IJ's determination. Furthermore, there was no indication in the record that Wang would face torture if returned to China; thus, the agency's CAT determination was upheld. The Court denied Wang's petition for review, vacated any previously granted stay of removal, and denied any pending motions for a stay as moot. Requests for oral argument were also denied per relevant procedural rules.