Filed: Feb. 26, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-26-2008 Sun v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3774 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Sun v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1525. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1525 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-26-2008 Sun v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3774 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Sun v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1525. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1525 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the ..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-26-2008
Sun v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3774
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Sun v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1525.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1525
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 06-3774
_____________
JIN EN SUN
a/k/a Jinen Sun
Jin En Sun,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Department of Justice
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A97-669-505)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Daniel Meisner
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 28, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
and RODRIGUEZ, *District Judge.
(Filed: February 26, 2008)
OPINION OF THE COURT
* Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Jin En Sun, a twenty-six year old Chinese citizen, petitions for review of a final
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), in which the BIA adopted and
affirmed the denial by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of Sun’s applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Before the IJ, Sun claimed that he practices Falun Gong and that, on account of his
practice, he was detained, beaten, and interrogated by the Chinese police for two months.
According to Sun’s testimony, he was only released from detention after he signed a
document promising to cease his Falun Gong activities, and he is now wanted by the
Chinese police because he subsequently violated this promise. The IJ denied Sun’s
applications because he did not find Sun’s testimony to be credible. We will deny Sun’s
petition for review because substantial evidence supports this adverse credibility
determination.
To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that he is a refugee. See
8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), 1101(a)(42)(A). A refugee is “a person unable or unwilling
to return to the country of that person’s nationality or habitual residence because of past
persecution or because of a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 271-72; see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). A rebuttable
presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution arises if an applicant establishes
2
that he suffered past persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). Applicants “have the
burden of supporting their asylum claims through credible testimony.” Gao, 299 F.3d at
272.
We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a). Since the BIA adopted and affirmed the decision of the IJ, we review the
decision of the IJ. Partyka v. Att’y Gen., 417 F.3d 408, 411 (3d Cir. 2005). As we do
with other findings of fact, we review an IJ’s adverse credibility determination for
substantial evidence.
Gao, 299 F.3d at 272. Therefore, we must uphold an IJ’s adverse
credibility determination “unless ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.’”
Id. at 272 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Despite this
highly deferential standard, “[a]dverse credibility determinations based on speculation or
conjecture . . . are reversible.”
Id. Moreover, we have explained that “minor
inconsistencies and minor admissions that reveal nothing about an asylum applicant's fear
for his safety are not an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding”; rather,
discrepancies in an applicant’s testimony must involve the “heart of the asylum claim.”
Id. at 272 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Sun argues on appeal that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not
supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The IJ based his determination on
numerous inconsistencies between Sun’s testimony at the merits hearing and his previous
statements that went to the heart of his asylum claim.
3
First, Sun stated during his asylum officer interview that he passed out Falun Gong
flyers in “secret” locations (A.R. 158); however, he testified at his merits hearing that he
distributed flyers “where there were more people around,” such as on the street and at
transport stations (A.R. 64).
Second, Sun stated in detail during his asylum officer interview that he believed he
was arrested because the jealous boyfriend of a woman he had been seeing had reported
him to the police; however, he failed to mention this theory at all during his merits
hearing.
Third, Sun stated during his asylum officer interview that the Chinese authorities
released him because his family paid a bribe, but he never mentioned the bribe at the
merits hearing. Instead, Sun explained in his application for asylum and at his merits
hearing that he was released because he signed a promise to stop practicing Falun Gong.
Sun also testified at his merits hearing that he was released because the government did
not have enough evidence against him.
Fourth, Sun stated in his asylum officer interview that after his release from
detention, he distributed Falun Gong flyers; however, at his merits hearing, Sun testified
that because he feared what would happen if the government caught him, he did nothing
related to Falun Gong after his detention except for practicing Falun Gong exercises late
at night at his parents’ home.1
1
The IJ also emphasized the fact that Sun provided drastically different descriptions of
(continued...)
4
Given these inconsistencies, we hold that the IJ’s credibility determination is
supported by substantial evidence, and we will not disturb the denial of asylum. Since
Sun failed to demonstrate his eligibility for asylum, he also “necessarily fail[ed] to meet
the standard for withholding of removal,” which is more stringent. Lukwago v. Ashcroft,
329 F.3d 157, 182 (3d Cir. 2003).
For the above reasons, we will DENY Sun’s petition for review.2
_____________
1
(...continued)
his travel path to the United States. For example, in his I-589, Sun stated that he traveled
through several African countries before boarding a plane for Miami. In contrast, Sun
testified during his merits hearing that he had traveled non-stop from Singapore to Miami.
Since the inconsistencies previously discussed are sufficient on their own to support the
IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we need not address whether an applicant’s telling
of inconsistent stories regarding his travel path to the United States goes to the heart of
his asylum claim.
2
Since the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is a sufficient independent basis for
denying Sun’s applications for relief, we need not address Sun’s argument that he should
have been granted a greater opportunity to provide corroborating evidence. Furthermore,
in his brief, Sun does not address the IJ’s denial of his application for relief under the
CAT, so neither will we.
5
