Jianping Wang v. Lynch, 14-4029
Decision Date | 27 May 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 14-4029,14-4029 |
Citation | 824 F.3d 587 |
Parties | Jianping Wang, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ON BRIEF: Kathryn M. McKinney, United State Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Jian Ping Wang, San Gabriel, California, pro se.
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, DAUGHTREY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
An applicant for a government benefit such as asylum may understandably pattern the facts of his application on those asserted by other applicants in previously successful applications. The tendency is doubtless stronger when the applicant is from a foreign culture where caution may be the watchword in giving personal information to the government, and especially where the applicant is not really sure what information our government is looking for. Recognizing the strength of such temptation, an immigration judge may reasonably question the truthfulness of an asylum applicant whose story of persecution is unbelievably similar to those of previously successful applicants. An immigration judge may properly take such remarkably similar facts as some evidence that an applicant is not telling the truth, at least where the applicant has been given a chance to explain the suspicious similarities. That is what happened in this case. On review of the immigration judge's denial of asylum based in large part on unlikely similarities with previous applications, the Board of Immigration Appeals properly upheld the denial of the asylum petition in this case.
Jianping Wang entered the United States in June 2006 as a nonimmigrant with authorization to remain until September 7, 2006. In November 2006, Wang appeared before an IJ, and after conceding removability, filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued among other things that Wang's asylum application was strikingly similar to several others. The IJ nonetheless determined that Wang's testimony was credible, and issued an oral decision granting Wang's application for asylum based upon his practice of Christianity. The IJ, stating that the similarities might have arisen from the applications' having been prepared by the same person, declined to consider the other applications. On appeal, the BIA reasoned that the IJ's credibility analysis was insufficient and failed to adequately address the DHS's argument regarding the similarities between Wang's application and the others. According to the BIA, the IJ also failed to adequately address the evidence in the record. The BIA remanded the case to the IJ for fuller consideration of the record and the DHS's argument.
The previous IJ having in the meantime been transferred, a new IJ was assigned the case on remand. The IJ pointed out that Wang's story contained many implausible elements, such as Wang's statement that he was placed under police surveillance but still managed to obtain a visa, which requires an interview. The IJ also noted the unlikelihood of Wang's being able to board a plane and leave China even though he was under governmental watch. Most damaging to Wang's credibility, however, were “two asylum applications from completely unrelated cases that share a striking number of very specific details.”
The IJ noted as an initial matter that “all three statements attached to the asylum applications appear to use the same formatting including the same font type, font size, typeface, margins, spacing, headings and so forth.” The IJ then turned to the substantive similarities:
These substantive similarities, according to the IJ, were “not as striking as the frequent occurrence of similar or identical language and phrasing across the applications”:
The IJ proceeded to explain why Wang's explanations of these similarities were inadequate and why these similarities supported the IJ's finding of Wang's lack of credibility:
This analysis is by no means an exhaustive enumeration of every similarity found across these three separate and unrelated asylum applications by applicants represented by different attorneys, and allegedly speaking through different translators.... There are many other similarities among the statements. The potential innocent explanations of these similarities discussed above do not square with the evidence.... The first two possibilities, that the different applicants inserted truthful information into standardized templates, and the similarities are the result of the same translator using their own rigid style, do not apply here, as all three applications were apparently prepared by different translators. Further, Respondent stated his translator was a friend of his from his Church in Los Angeles. The next possibility, that Respondent's application is the true account and the others are plagiarized, is not likely as Respondent stated that he did not tell his story to or share his statement with anyone other than Ms. Liu who translated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re O.R.E.
...account of his and his family's personal circumstances at the time of the Rwandan genocide to be implausible. See Wang v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 587, 591 (6th Cir. 2016) (providing that the "inherent implausibility of elements of [an applicant's] story" justify an adverse credibility finding). The......
- Lake Eugenie Land & Dev., Inc. v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc. (In re Horizon)
-
Singh v. Garland
...remand was an abuse of discretion. See Milat , 755 F.3d at 365.IV.The petition for review is DENIED.1 See, e.g., Wang v. Lynch , 824 F.3d 587, 591 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting "the similar applications were [both] in the record"); Dehonzai v. Holder , 650 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2011) (providing cop......
-
Singh v. Garland
...record, as the IJ did here, fails to provide the meaningful notice that Matter of R-K-K- requires.17 Id. at 661.18 See Wang v. Lynch , 824 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 2016) ("There is an important distinction, however, between applications that are very similar and applications that are identic......