Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

testimonyaffidavitmotionasylumvisacredibility

appealtestimonyaffidavitmotioncredibility

Related Cases

Shouchen Yang v. Lynch

Facts

Shouchen Yang, a native of China, entered the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa in 2005 and later applied for asylum. During removal proceedings, the immigration judge found Yang's testimony about government persecution to be not credible, leading to the denial of his applications for relief. Afterward, Yang filed a motion to reopen based on a new claim of religious persecution, supported by an affidavit and other documents, which the BIA denied, citing Yang's prior lack of credibility.

In removal proceedings, Yang testified that he had mobilized his co-workers to complain about corruption in the government-affiliated hotel where they worked, prompting local officials to have Yang arrested and beaten. But the immigration judge found that Yang's testimony was not credible, and denied Yang's applications for relief.

Issue

Whether the BIA may apply the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus maxim to deny a motion to reopen based on a prior adverse credibility determination.

The question in this appeal is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals ('BIA') may do the same thing when considering a motion to reopen removal proceedings.

Rule

The BIA may not make adverse credibility determinations in denying a motion to reopen; it must credit evidence supporting a motion to reopen unless that evidence is inherently unbelievable.

On a motion to reopen, the BIA cannot make the kind of credibility determination inherent in a decision to apply the falsus maxim.

Analysis

The court determined that the BIA's application of the falsus maxim was inappropriate in this context. It emphasized that the BIA should not discredit Yang's new affidavit solely based on the immigration judge's previous credibility finding. The court noted that the BIA's role is limited to reviewing whether the immigration judge's determination was clearly erroneous, and it cannot make its own credibility assessments.

But, in this circuit, '[w]e have long held that credibility determinations on motions to reopen are inappropriate.' Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 986 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Ghadessi v. INS, 797 F.2d 804, 806-07 (9th Cir. 1986). The BIA must instead credit evidence supporting a motion to reopen unless that evidence is 'inherently unbelievable.' Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1256 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Yan Rong Zhao v. Holder, 728 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2013).

Conclusion

The court granted Yang's petition for review and remanded the case, concluding that the BIA's decision to discredit Yang's affidavit was contrary to law and an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we grant Yang's petition for review, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Shouchen Yang prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA improperly applied the falsus maxim in denying his motion to reopen.

The BIA's decision to discredit Yang's affidavit based on application of the falsus maxim was contrary to law, and therefore an abuse of discretion.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Al Milaji v. Mukasey

Berri v. Gonzales

Diaz Ortiz v. Barr

Quezada-Caraballo v. Lynch

Li Hua Yuan v. AG