Dian Xu Jiang v. Gonzales

Second Circuit

Dian Xu Jiang v. Gonzales

156 F. App'x 369

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 2005

DocketNo. 03-40330-AG NAC

StatusPublished

This text of 156 F. App'x 369 (Dian Xu Jiang v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dian Xu Jiang v. Gonzales, 156 F. App'x 369 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner Dian Xu Jiang, through counsel, petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

This appeal is based on an adverse credibility determination made by an IJ and which petitioner challenges. “[T]he fact that the BIA has relied primarily on credibility grounds in dismissing an asylum application cannot insulate the decision from review.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004). An adverse credibility determination must be based on “specific cogent reasons” that “bear a legitimate nexus” to the finding. Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003)). Here, the IJ based his adverse credibility determination on specific inconsistencies and found the evidence did not support a claim of past persecution on the grounds of political opinion. The IJ gave specific reasons — Jiang’s testimony that only his friend was arrested differed from his friend’s statement that they were both arrested, and the fact that his friend had not suffered any subsequent persecution — to support his determination. Because these inconsistencies went to the heart of Jiang’s claim, that he was detained and would be subject to future arrest, a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find otherwise. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir.2000); see also Zhou Yi Ni v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 424 F.3d 172, 174 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Petitioner Dian Xu Jiang, through counsel, petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

This appeal is based on an adverse credibility determination made by an IJ and which petitioner challenges. “[T]he fact that the BIA has relied primarily on credibility grounds in dismissing an asylum application cannot insulate the decision from review.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004). An adverse credibility determination must be based on “specific cogent reasons” that “bear a legitimate nexus” to the finding. Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003)). Here, the IJ based his adverse credibility determination on specific inconsistencies and found the evidence did not support a claim of past persecution on the grounds of political opinion. The IJ gave specific reasons — Jiang’s testimony that only his friend was arrested differed from his friend’s statement that they were both arrested, and the fact that his friend had not suffered any subsequent persecution — to support his determination. Because these inconsistencies went to the heart of Jiang’s claim, that he was detained and would be subject to future arrest, a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find otherwise. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir.2000); see also Zhou Yi Ni v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 424 F.3d 172, 174 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 F. App'x 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dian-xu-jiang-v-gonzales-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack