Yi Quan Chen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ninth Circuit

Yi Quan Chen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

326 F.3d 1316, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3505, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 4480, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7927, 2003 WL 1955206

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2003

Docket00-70478

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 326 F.3d 1316 (Yi Quan Chen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yi Quan Chen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 326 F.3d 1316, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3505, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 4480, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7927, 2003 WL 1955206 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

In our prior opinion, Chen v. I.N.S., 266 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.2001), this court reviewed Yi Quan Chen’s application for asylum and withholding of removal pursuant to § 208(a) and § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had dismissed Chen’s application and agreed with the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that Chen lacked credibility. This court overruled the BIA, holding that Chen had established his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Chen, 266 F.3d at 1099. We found that Chen was credible and had produced direct and specific evidence of past persecution. Id. at 1101. We also held that Chen had a well-founded fear of future persecution and established a clear probability that he would be persecuted if returned to China. Id. at 1099. We ultimately remanded the ease to the Attorney General to determine in the exercise of his discretion whether to grant asylum to Chen. Id. at 1103.

In I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002), the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit *1317 had erred by failing to remand an asylum case to the BIA for additional investigation or explanation relating to the changed circumstances in Guatemala. The Court pointed out that under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(1) (1994), the law entrusts the agency to make the basic asylum eligibility decision. Ventura, 123 S.Ct. at 355-56.

On November 12, 2002, the Supreme Court vacated our ruling in Chen and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of Ventura. Upon reconsideration, we now remand to the BIA for it to decide Chen’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. In doing so, we stress that this court’s reversal of the BIA’s adverse credibility finding still stands based upon the analysis in our prior opinion. We held the BIA failed to provide the requisite specific,, cogent reason for discrediting Chen.

The case is remanded to the BIA for further consideration and investigation in light of our prior ruling on Chen’s credibility.

REMANDED.

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

ORDER

In our prior opinion, Chen v. I.N.S., 266 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.2001), this court reviewed Yi Quan Chen’s application for asylum and withholding of removal pursuant to § 208(a) and § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had dismissed Chen’s application and agreed with the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that Chen lacked credibility. This court overruled the BIA, holding that Chen had established his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Chen, 266 F.3d at 1099. We found that Chen was credible and had produced direct and specific evidence of past persecution. Id. at 1101. We also held that Chen had a well-founded fear of future persecution and established a clear probability that he would be persecuted if returned to China. Id. at 1099. We ultimately remanded the ease to the Attorney General to determine in the exercise of his discretion whether to grant asylum to Chen. Id. at 1103.

In I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002), the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit *1317 had erred by failing to remand an asylum case to the BIA for additional investigation or explanation relating to the changed circumstances in Guatemala. The Court pointed out that under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(1) (1994), the law entrusts the agency to make the basic asylum eligibility decision. Ventura, 123 S.Ct. at 355-56.

On November 12, 2002, the Supreme Court vacated our ruling in Chen and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of Ventura. Upon reconsideration, we now remand to the BIA for it to decide Chen’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. In doing so, we stress that this court’s reversal of the BIA’s adverse credibility finding still stands based upon the analysis in our prior opinion. We held the BIA failed to provide the requisite specific,, cogent reason for discrediting Chen.

The case is remanded to the BIA for further consideration and investigation in light of our prior ruling on Chen’s credibility.

REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F.3d 1316, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3505, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 4480, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7927, 2003 WL 1955206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yi-quan-chen-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack