Zhi v. Holder, No. 10-71591 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a Chinese citizen, sought review of the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that substantial evidence does not support the agency's finding that the discrepancy in dates undermined petitioner's credibility; the IJ committed several errors in her treatment of petitioner's marriage to a United States citizen; and, applying Ren v. Holder, the court held that the IJ erred because she did not provide notice to petitioner that he was required to present corroborating evidence she referred to in her decision nor did she give him an opportunity to explain why such evidence might be unavailable. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on a discrepancy in dates in the documentary evidence, given that other evidence in the record corroborated petitioner’s explanation that one of the documents included an incorrect date due to a typographical error. The panel held that the IJ erred by relying on petitioner’s short-lived marriage to a United States citizen to question his credibility because the IJ failed to consider petitioner’s explanation for the termination of his marriage, never questioned petitioner about why he entered the United States on a B-1 business visa, rather than a K-1 fiancé visa, and failed to give any consideration to petitioner’s testimony that his wife never filed a visa petition for him, which undermined the IJ’s speculation and conjecture that petitioner married solely to remain in the country. The panel held that the IJ also failed to provide petitioner with proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to produce corroborating evidence, as required by Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1090-92 (9th Cir. 2011). The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.