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.
Yan Qin Yang v. Department of Homeland Security
Citation: 249 F. App'x 884Docket: No. 04-5222-ag
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; October 5, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Petitioner Yan Qin Yang, a Chinese citizen, seeks judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) by Immigration Judge U. Gabriel C. Videla, which resulted in her removal from the United States. Yang argues that the agency erred in not granting her relief based on her past forced abortion and fear of future forced sterilization or IUD insertion. However, her failure to challenge the withholding and CAT claims before the BIA led to their dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The review focuses solely on Yang's asylum claim, where the BIA's adoption of the IJ's denial without elaboration necessitates a review of the IJ's findings. The IJ's adverse credibility determinations are upheld under the substantial evidence standard. The IJ found Yang's claims of past and future political persecution not credible, specifically stating doubts about her decision to undergo an abortion, attributing it more to familial pressure than government coercion. Yang's inconsistent statements during her credible fear interview, where she falsely claimed membership in Falun Gong as the basis for her asylum, further undermined her credibility. Consequently, the IJ's adverse credibility finding stood, indicating that Yang did not sufficiently demonstrate past political persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution necessary for asylum. Yang's request for a new hearing based on the birth of her second son in the U.S. is not reviewable since it relies on facts outside the original administrative record. The petition for review is denied, and no remand is deemed necessary regarding China's birth control policy, as the BIA's recent ruling clarifies the definition of "forced" abortion under the Act.