Yali Wang v. Sessions, No. 14-72469 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility finding where the IJ determined that petitioner gave equivocal testimony about the reasons for errors in marriage records; petitioner's testimony regarding the critical events underlying her claims for relief were very vague; and the documents submitted by petitioner did not adequately corroborate her testimony. Furthermore, the IJ had no obligation to give petitioner an additional opportunity to bolster her case by submitting further evidence.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial on adverse credibility grounds of an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on anomalies in petitioner’s supporting documentation, petitioner’s vague testimony, and her failure to submit sufficient reliable corroborating evidence. The panel rejected petitioner’s contention that the IJ erred by failing to make an affirmative finding that she submitted forged documentation, explaining that the applicant has the burden to satisfy the trier of fact by offering credible and persuasive evidence, and that the IJ may consider all relevant factors, including “the inherent plausibility” of the applicant’s account. The panel held that the IJ was under no obligation under Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011), to provide petitioner notice and an opportunity to present additional corroborating evidence, because petitioner failed to meet her initial burden of presenting credible testimony. The panel further held that when an IJ has considered the corroborating WANG V. SESSIONS 3 evidence submitted, but deemed that evidence insufficient, the IJ need not afford the applicant an opportunity to provide additional evidence.
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.