Jin v. Holder
| Decision Date | 14 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–72413.,10–72413. |
| Citation | 748 F.3d 959 |
| Parties | BINGXU JIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jisheng Li (argued), Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Daniel Eric Goldman (argued), Attorney; Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; William C. Peachey, Assistant Director; Rebecca Hoffberg, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A099–062–080.
Before: RAYMOND C. FISHER, RONALD M. GOULD, and MORGAN CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Bingxu Jin petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Jin, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States in April 2005 as a non-immigrant visitor authorized to stay for a month. In October 2005, Jin filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal with the Department of Homeland Security. Jin subsequently received a Notice to Appear, charging him with failure to comply with the conditions of his admission to the United States. Jin conceded removability, and appeared in front of a Los Angeles immigration judge in January 2006, where he confirmed the Los Angeles residence in his application. In April 2006, Jin filed an unopposed motion to change venue to Tucson, Arizona, and submitted a Tucson address in support of his venue change motion. The Los Angeles court granted Jin's motion. In June 2007, Jin filed a second unopposed motion to change venue to Las Vegas, Nevada, including a declaration that he moved to Las Vegas, and it would be inconvenient for him to travel to Tucson for his immigration proceedings. The Tucson court granted Jin's second motion to change venue.
In his asylum application, Jin submitted a two-page written affidavit that described Jin's first encounter with Christianity, and an alleged incident with Chinese police at a Christian family church. Jin portrayed the events as follows:
Jin was introduced to Christianity on a trip to Malaysia in June 2002, where he met Zhao Xiaodong. Zhao “passed the Gospel” to Jin and told Jin “the Bible story.” After their return to China, Zhao gave Jin a Bible and invited Jin to attend Zhao's family church, which met at Zhao's home. Jin joined Zhao's family church in September 2002, and was baptized on Christmas that year.
On November 14, 2004, three policemen broke into Zhao's house, confiscated Bibles and Gospel materials, and took Jin and other members to the local police station, where they interrogated Jin about alleged anti-government activity. The police demanded that Jin “confess” the identities of other family church agitators. Jin said that he did not know, and the police beat him with batons, and then took him to a detention center where he was confined until November 23, 2004. Jin was again interrogated and beaten at the detention center. Jin felt dizzy and weak because he was starving. His wife paid 9,000 Renminbi to gain his release. Before he departed, police told Jin to write a letter of repentance and to report weekly. Jin was hospitalized for seven days, during which time he learned that he had lost his job. Jin eventually obtained a United States visa. After Jin arrived in the United States, his wife, who was still in China, told him that police came to their house and said that they would punish Jin severely if they caught him.
Jin's case was heard by a Las Vegas immigration judge in July 2009. On direct examination, Jin's testimony repeated the facts from his application affidavit, apart from stating the date of arrest as November 23, 2004, which Jin later said was November 14, 2004. On cross-examination about his introduction to Christianity, Jin testified that Zhao “told me some Bible stories and spread Gospel to me” during his five-day trip to Malaysia. Jin testified that he did not practice any religion before 2002 because he thought there was no purpose, but that the Christians in Zhao's church moved him because they were “gentle, kind and gracious.”
On cross-examination about his contact with the family church members after their arrest, Jin testified that he was separated from everyone else and did not know what happened to Zhao or to the other members. Jin stated that neither he nor his family had further contact with the church members after his release because he was under surveillance. Jin said that he never heard what happened to the other members. When asked if he was concerned for them, Jin said that he could only think of himself at the time.
The government also cross-examined Jin about his residence since arriving in the United States. Jin said that he first lived in Los Angeles, then moved to Tucson. This prompted the following exchange:
Government: Do you remember the address?
Jin: 3000 West Ina Street—Ina Road, Tucson.
Government: Isn't that actually a shopping plaza in Tucson?
Jin: It's not a shopping plaza.
Government: Are you sure it's not a business named New China Super Buffet?
Jin: I don't quite know because I do not have any recollection.
Jin then testified that he lived in Tucson for “a few days” and left when there were no jobs, noting that his life at that time was “not stable.” Jin testified that he would stay with friends in Tucson. The IJ requested clarification about whether Jin lived in Tucson for a few days or for a year, as set out in his application, to which Jin responded: “[W]ell, I stay there, for about one year but, when there's no work there, I return to Los Angeles.”
The government submitted a photo of the Tucson address Jin had given, as well as documents indicating that the address belonged to a commercial shopping center with a full-service restaurant. The government returned to the question of whether Jin had lived at the Tucson address and Jin said that he was not sure.
Jin then explained that he moved his case to Tucson “[b]ecause the attorney's office said that it's easier to have a lawsuit there.” When asked directly whether he ever lived in Arizona, Jin replied that he did not live in Arizona but stayed with friends. The government again asked why Jin moved his case to Arizona when he was not living there, to which Jin responded, “At that time, my friends told me that I could find a job there, but I couldn't.” The IJ interjected that Jin's answer was non-responsive, and Jin then said that he was told his immigration case would follow him to Arizona. Jin testified that he received the “3000 West Ina Road” address in Tucson from a friend. When again asked whether he moved his case to get an “easier” immigration judge for his asylum claim, Jin conceded, “Well, these kind of thoughts, more or less, play as a factor.”
The government then asked Jin what evidence he had to prove that he lived in Las Vegas, to which Jin responded, “Well, I live in Las Vegas.” Jin did not have a valid Nevada driver's license, and his expired license showed a California address. When asked about the last time he lived in Los Angeles, Jin testified: The IJ again questioned Jin about transferring his case out of Los Angeles, and Jin confirmed that he sought the venue transfer because his attorney told him that it would be easier to get his asylum application approved in another state. 1 The IJ asked Jin where he spent most of his time living, to which Jin again responded that he went back and forth between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. When told his answer was not responsive, Jin said that he spent most of his time in Los Angeles, at the address he used to get his work authorization and his last driver's license. Jin stated that the percentage was “half and half” because there was no work in Los Angeles, but also no work in Las Vegas. Jin further testified that if his case was not transferred to Las Vegas, he would not come to Las Vegas because he did not know the city.
Jin had previously testified on direct that he attended church in Las Vegas. In support, Jin had submitted a May 24, 2009 Certificate of Membership in the Korean Evangelical Church of America Praise Church of Las Vegas, in which the Senior Pastor of the Las Vegas church stated that Jin attended worship services on Sundays and had been a member since July 2007. Jin testified that he had asked his pastor to come to his immigration hearing back in May, but his pastor was too busy. Because his pastor could not appear, Jin had obtained his pastor's certification as proof.
After Jin's admission that he went back and forth between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, the IJ questioned whether Jin was a regular member of the Las Vegas church. Jin in answer responded, “Well, I told my pastor, I begged her to help me out—I begged him to help me out because I told him that's what was said on my materials, that I came here around that time period.” The IJ struck the answer as non-responsive, and asked again about Jin's church membership in Las Vegas. Jin then said that he went to church in Las Vegas for the last two months, but for most of the time he had been at the church in Los Angeles.
The IJ then returned to the police incident in China, leading to the following exchange:
IJ: Now, let's go back to that incident when the police rushed in. Do I understand—did they knock on the door before they entered? How did they enter? If you can just describe it.
Jin: Is he talking about the day when we were arrested?
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Care One Mgmt. v. United Healthcare Workers E.
...agent-no labor organization was involved. 155 F.3d at 638-39. [70] Villalobos, 748 F.3d at 956. See Dissent at 16 (citing Villalobos, 748 F.3d at 959) (Watford, J., concurring in the judgment)). [71] Agnes, 753 F.2d at 299 n.4 (citing 603 F.2d at 419) (second alteration in original) (emphas......
-
Etemadi v. Garland
...Fremont Christian Church. To be sure, this line of questioning is not the strongest evidence of evasiveness. Cf. Bingxu Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2014) (upholding an IJ's finding of evasive testimony when the petitioner failed to respond to multiple inquiries about his resi......
- Care One Mgmt., LLC v. United Healthcare Workers E.
-
Etemadi v. Garland
...Fremont Christian Church.To be sure, this line of questioning is not the strongest evidence of evasiveness. Cf . Bingxu Jin v. Holder , 748 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2014) (upholding an IJ's finding of evasive testimony when the petitioner failed to respond to multiple inquiries about his res......