Jiang v. Holder, Jr., No. 09-70900 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the BIA's decision, which substantially adopted the IJ's order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner failed to testify that she was physically abused during her detention until she was prompted to do so by her attorney. The court concluded that, because this inconsistency was sufficient to support the IJ's adverse credibility finding, the court need not comment on the remaining grounds cited by the BIA. Petitioner's withholding of removal and CAT claims also failed. Petitioner also claimed that the IJ deprived her of her due process right to a full and fair hearing where the IJ abandoned her role as a neutral fact-finder and imposed "moral judgment" on petitioner's relationship with her roommate. The court concluded that, even if petitioner had shown that the IJ's questioning prevented her from reasonably presenting her case, she failed to articulate how this alleged violation of due process affected the outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The panel held the inconsistency between petitioner’s asylum declaration, in which she recounted her physical abuse during detention, and her failure to testify about that abuse until she was prompted to do so by her attorney, was sufficient to support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The panel explained that the evidence did not compel petitioner’s interpretation of her testimony. Because petitioner’s CAT claim was based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and she pointed to no other evidence that the IJ should have considered, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT relief. The panel rejected petitioner’s contention that the IJ deprived her of due process by failing to act as a neutral arbiter because she failed to show that the IJ prevented her from presenting evidence or that the IJ’s actions prejudiced her. Dissenting in part and concurring in part, Judge Bea wrote that the IJ failed to provide a legitimate articulable basis or specific cogent reason for the credibility determination. Judge Bea explained that the IJ based that finding not upon substantial evidence, but rather the IJ’s own misunderstanding of petitioner’s attorney’s non-chronological questions and of the plain words of petitioner’s answers. Judge Bea concurred with the majority’s due process analysis.
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.