Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

tortjurisdictionappealhearingtestimonymotionwillasylum
tortjurisdictionappealhearingtestimonymotionwillasylum

Related Cases

Molathwa v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Ochoa v. Gonzales
View Case »
Martinez-Buendia v. Holder
View Case »
Xu v. Garland
View Case »
Felder v. Wetzel
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wu v. Holder

Facts

The facts and procedural history of this case are recounted in our prior opinion, Nen Di Wu v. Holder, 617 F.3d 97, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2010); we recite here only those facts necessary to the resolution of this stage of the case. Wu is a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China. In a June 2, 2006, hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Wu conceded removability but sought asylum and withholding of removal based on religion and political opinion, as well as relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Wu testified before the IJ that the Chinese government had persecuted him because he attended an underground Christian church in China. The IJ rejected Wu's testimony as 'vague,' 'evasive[,] and non-responsive,' and found insufficient corroborating evidence that Wu has regularly attended church while in the United States. Accordingly, the IJ denied Wu's asylum, withholding, and CAT claims. The BIA dismissed Wu's appeal on June 1, 2009.

The facts and procedural history of this case are recounted in our prior opinion, Nen Di Wu v. Holder, 617 F.3d 97, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2010); we recite here only those facts necessary to the resolution of this stage of the case. Wu is a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China. In a June 2, 2006, hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Wu conceded removability but sought asylum and withholding of removal based on religion and political opinion, as well as relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Wu testified before the IJ that the Chinese government had persecuted him because he attended an underground Christian church in China. The IJ rejected Wu's testimony as 'vague,' 'evasive[,] and non-responsive,' and found insufficient corroborating evidence that Wu has regularly attended church while in the United States. Accordingly, the IJ denied Wu's asylum, withholding, and CAT claims. The BIA dismissed Wu's appeal on June 1, 2009.

Issue

The issue before us thus becomes: how we should exercise our discretion in the instant case.

The issue before us thus becomes: how we should exercise our discretion in the instant case.

Rule

Under the 'fugitive disentitlement doctrine,' federal courts have the inherent power to dismiss an appeal of a party who, during the appeal's pendency, is a fugitive from justice.

Under the 'fugitive disentitlement doctrine,' federal courts have the inherent power to dismiss an appeal of a party who, during the appeal's pendency, is a fugitive from justice.

Analysis

Applying these factors to Wu's case, we turn first to whether a decision adverse to Wu will be difficult to enforce against him. As we said before, this 'depends in part on the extent to which Wu is actually evading the law,' including how long he has been a fugitive. The government has discussed neither its initial or ongoing efforts to locate Wu nor any actions on Wu's part (other than his failure to respond to the bag-and-baggage letters) that suggest that he is hiding from the authorities. To the contrary, the record shows that the authorities are well aware of how to locate Wu and that he remains within the court's jurisdiction.

Applying these factors to Wu's case, we turn first to whether a decision adverse to Wu will be difficult to enforce against him. As we said before, this 'depends in part on the extent to which Wu is actually evading the law,' including how long he has been a fugitive. The government has discussed neither its initial or ongoing efforts to locate Wu nor any actions on Wu's part (other than his failure to respond to the bag-and-baggage letters) that suggest that he is hiding from the authorities. To the contrary, the record shows that the authorities are well aware of how to locate Wu and that he remains within the court's jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Accordingly, we deny the government's motion. In an accompanying summary order addressing the merits of Wu's case, we deny his petition for review.

Accordingly, we deny the government's motion. In an accompanying summary order addressing the merits of Wu's case, we deny his petition for review.

Who won?

Nen Di Wu prevailed in the case because the court found that the application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was not warranted.

Nen Di Wu prevailed in the case because the court found that the application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was not warranted.

You must be