Jin v. Holder

In an adverse credibility determination, substantial evidence must reasonably show that a petitioner is not credible based on the totality of circumstances.

Bingxu Jin, a native of China, filed for asylum after overstaying a non-immigrant visa granted for a month. In January 2006, Jin established residency in Los Angeles before an immigration judge. In April 2006, Jin changed venues to the Tucson, Arizona court. In June 2007, Jin changed venues again to the Las Vegas, Nevada court. Jin’s asylum application sought relief under the Convention Against Torture, arguing that the Chinese police assaulted and confined him in a detention center based on Christian beliefs. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the application based on adverse credibility. Jin appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed the appeal. The BIA’s findings took into account Jin’s non-responsive conduct, misrepresentations regarding place of residence, a fraudulent certificate of church attendance, and a general failure to provide details pertaining to the police confrontation in China. The Ninth Circuit Court reviewed for “substantial evidence” pursuant to the REAL ID Act, which instructs the government to determine credibility using the totality of circumstances. Inconsistencies in the petitioner’s testimony may be examined, but minor discrepancies cannot be the foundation of an adverse credibility finding. The panel found that Jin’s answers to the IJ’s inquiry were not minor. Accordingly, the panel determined that the government sufficiently assessed Jin’s credibility using the totality of circumstances. Petition for Review DENIED.