Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; March 14, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Petitioner Shunhua Hu, a citizen of China, seeks judicial review of a BIA order affirming an IJ's denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Hu entered the U.S. on February 9, 2001, without inspection and was detained for interviews by asylum officers that same day, followed by two additional interviews. The INS initiated removal proceedings against him on May 16, 2001, citing his inadmissibility due to lack of valid entry documents. At his removal hearing, Hu conceded removability but sought asylum based on alleged persecution due to his and his family's Christian beliefs.
Initially, Hu stated his purpose for entering the U.S. was academic, not mentioning religion or persecution, and claimed he had never been arrested in China. However, in subsequent interviews, he expressed fear of arrest for his Christian beliefs and eventually recounted previous arrests of himself and his brother due to their father's religious practices. During the June 13, 2003 merits hearing, Hu testified about his family's affiliation with the Cheng Guan Church, a secret underground Christian church, and detailed the events surrounding his escape from China, including an incident on May 4, 2000, when Chinese officials attempted to arrest his parents for practicing Christianity, leading to Hu's own arrest. The court ultimately denied Hu's petition for review.
Hu was detained for ten days and released on May 14, 2000, with instructions to find his parents and have them report to the police. At the hearing, he indicated his brother remained in detention. After his release, Hu searched for his parents, first at his aunt's house, then returned home, and eventually went to Yun Nan province for seven to eight months, where he worked at a bookstore and rented an apartment. He did not attend church in Yun Nan due to unfamiliarity with the community and his sister's advice to stay indoors. Hu last saw his parents in Yun Nan, where he was told they had left China, though he later stated their location was 'Lian Jiang, China' on his asylum application. He confirmed that they were not in the United States. Hu arrived in the U.S. on February 9, 2001, after traveling through India and England, and began living in Philadelphia in August 2001, where he attended church services he could not understand due to the language barrier. He provided evidence including a baptism certificate and letters from the Cheng Guan Church, which affirmed his family's Christian faith.
On June 13, 2003, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found Hu's testimony to be completely fabricated, denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision without opinion on March 10, 2005. Hu appealed, arguing that the IJ's credibility determination lacked substantial evidence and was based on biased observations. He contended that an adverse credibility finding requires specific, cogent reasons linked to the claims and should not rely on speculation or conjecture. The review of the IJ's determination is based on whether it is supported by substantial evidence, considering the entire record and the credibility factors relevant to Hu's claims.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) provided a detailed opinion outlining several reasons for finding Hu not credible in his asylum claim. Key points include:
1. **Inconsistent Testimony**: Hu's reasons for coming to the U.S. changed during three asylum interviews, initially stating he came to study, which he maintained upon arrival, but altering this narrative after detention with other Chinese individuals.
2. **Contradictory Claims**: Hu’s testimony contradicted his asylum applications. He stated his parents lived in Liang Jiang, China, but later claimed they had fled and he didn't know their whereabouts. Furthermore, he asserted he lived in Liang Jiang until his departure in February 2001, yet testified he fled to Yun Nan after being released from detention.
3. **Credibility of Knowledge**: The IJ found Hu's limited understanding of Christianity undermined his claims, particularly noting his inability to differentiate between the Old and New Testaments and misidentifying the Book of Matthew.
4. **Questionable Documentary Evidence**: The IJ deemed Hu's baptismal certificate implausible, questioning why a secret church would issue a document with detailed personal information, and noted oddities about the information provided.
5. **Overall Assessment**: The IJ concluded that Hu's testimony was fabricated, stating that his initial purpose for coming to the U.S. was to study, and highlighted numerous inconsistencies that cast doubt on his claim of religious persecution.
The ruling emphasized that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s credibility determination, which is not compelled to be overturned, and addressed that the Real ID Act of 2005, changing credibility standards, was not applicable to Hu’s claims filed in 2001. Hu's assertion that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred in affirming the IJ's decision without opinion was deemed waived and lacking merit. The document concludes with a reference to the procedural changes following the dissolution of the INS and the establishment of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
