Xuejiao Ji v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, Attorney General

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0499n.06
No. 12-3849
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
XUEJIAO JI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM A
FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before: CLAY and COOK, Circuit Judges; OLIVER, District Judge*
COOK, Circuit Judge. Xuejiao Ji, a Chinese citizen, petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”) order denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). She claims that her
religious beliefs make her a target for persecution. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that conflicts
between her testimony and declarations in her asylum application made Ji a non-credible witness and
denied relief. The BIA agreed. For the following reasons, we DENY the petition.
I.
Ji came to the United States in June 2008 using a passport in her own name and a
The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Northern*
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 8 --

No. 12-3849
Ji v. Holder
nonimmigrant student visa. In February 2009, she filed an asylum application with the Department
of Homeland Security (“DHS”) on the ground of religious persecution. Ji interviewed with an
asylum officer, who denied her claim because of her vague and inconsistent testimony, as well as
her apparent unfamiliarity with Christianity. The asylum officer referred her case to the Immigration
Court. In March 2009, DHS filed a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging Ji with removability
because she violated her student visa by no longer attending school. After conceding removability,
Ji renewed her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.
At the October 2010 merits hearing, Ji testified as follows. In October 2005, while studying
international economics and trade at Yaolin Technical University in China, Ji’s piano teacher
introduced her to Christianity and encouraged her to attend in-home Bible-study meetings. Six
months later, she learned the Chinese government prohibits worshiping in unregistered “house
churches.” In June 2007, three police officers arrived at the house church, accused Ji and others of
gathering illegally, and took them to the Quinsong police station for questioning. Ji stated that the
police interrogated her twice during her eight-day detention. During the first interrogation, one
officer slapped her across the face. At the second, an officer kicked her twice in the abdomen after
hitting her head against the wall. Despite some bruising on her abdomen, Ji required no medical
attention.
According to Ji, the police released her without filing criminal charges after insisting she sign
a “letter of guarantee” in which she agreed to cease all contact with the church members. They also
- 2 -

-- 2 of 8 --

No. 12-3849
Ji v. Holder
required Ji to report to the police station on a bimonthly basis. Ji stated that, after moving back in
with her father post-graduation, the police came to her father’s home and continued to warn her
against engaging in any home church activities. Although claiming that the police kept her under
constant surveillance during this period, Ji acknowledged that she had no proof, just suspicion, and
encountered the police only during her station visits and twice at her father’s home. She further
testified that in November 2007 she contacted a “snakehead” (human smuggler) to arrange entry into
the United States with the necessary paperwork, including a passport in her name and a student visa.
She left China in June 2008, passing normal security checkpoints and using her own name without
incident.
During cross-examination, Ji testified that her mother was granted asylum in 2005 and lived
in Florida. Yet, on her 2009 application for asylum, Ji listed her mother as still living in China.
When pressed about this discrepancy, she suggested that either she or “the law firm [that] did the
form ma[de] the mistake.” When asked if the asylum officer went over the question with her, Ji
replied that she “did not remember all the questions.” But in view of the check marks next to each
of the questions in the application, the IJ found it implausible that Ji had not had an opportunity to
correct the answer in the proceedings before the asylum officer.
DHS also presented various documents that undercut Ji’s claims of religious persecution.
First, the International Religious Freedom Report states “[m]ost Christian groups, the majority of
which are not members of the P[atriotic] R[eligious] A[ssociation], no longer operated in strict
- 3 -

-- 3 of 8 --

No. 12-3849
Ji v. Holder
secrecy” in China. While acknowledging that some church members may face harassment in certain
areas, the report noted that religious leaders are the ones primarily at risk. Second, the State
Department’s Country Conditions Report notes that “many house churches . . . are quietly tolerated
by local authorities so long as they remain small and unobtrusive.” Third, a 2007 Canadian
Immigration and Refugee Board document, citing a New York-based organization for human rights
in China, reported that persons previously arrested in church raids become part of a Public Security
Bureau database. Someone in this situation would have a difficult time obtaining and using a
passport in their own name to leave the country. The IJ reasoned that this report undermined Ji’s
testimony, particularly her claimed use of a passport.
The IJ orally denied Ji’s claims, finding that her testimony lacked credibility, and, even if
credited, it failed to establish religious persecution. Ji appealed and the BIA denied relief,
underscoring the inconsistent answers regarding her mother’s residence, as well as the inherent
implausibility of her story. It also agreed with the IJ’s analysis that Ji’s testimony, taken at face
value, failed to fall within the definition for persecution. Ji timely petitioned for review.
II.
A. Standard of Review
“Where, as here, the BIA affirms an IJ’s ruling and adds its own comments, we review both
the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s additional remarks.” Lateef v. Holder, 683 F.3d 275, 279 (6th Cir.
- 4 -

-- 4 of 8 --

No. 12-3849
Ji v. Holder
2012) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). We apply the substantial evidence standard
to the BIA’s factual findings and credibility assessments, reversing only if the evidence “not only
supports a contrary conclusion, but indeed compels it.” Klawitter v. INS, 970 F.2d 149, 152 (6th Cir.
1992). Finally, the REAL ID Act of 2005 governs Ji’s challenge. The Act requires that credibility
determinations be made under the “totality of the circumstances,” permitting an IJ to take into
account “the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . and any
inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency,
inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
see also El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 250, 256 (6th Cir. 2009).
B. Credibility Assessment
Ji charges that the BIA’s adverse credibility findings fail the substantial-evidence standard
as it rested on “speculative conclusions and trivial inconsistencies.” We disagree. Substantial
evidence, including: “the inherent plausibility of [Ji’s] account, the consistency of her written and
testimonial evidence, and her demeanor and responsiveness while testifying,” supports this finding.
On the plausibility point, the Board emphasized “documentary evidence indicating that individuals
arrested in church raids are likely to be placed into a government database monitoring
system”—evidence belying Ji’s claim that she left China using a passport in her own name. Ji
responds that even if China employs such a database, “that allegation alone is no reason to conclude
that any person included in the database would be unable to procure a passport.” Fair enough. But
- 5 -

-- 5 of 8 --

No. 12-3849
Ji v. Holder
the accumulated inconsistencies diminished the value of this point. Ji maintains that her inconsistent
statements regarding her mother’s residence can be explained away. Yet her story fails to account
for the check marks next to the questions, signaling her failure to correct the inconsistent answer.
Likewise, the supposition that she could have escaped entry into the database does not undermine
the BIA’s findings. An asylum applicant’s explanation for an inconsistency will not overcome an
adverse credibility finding if the IJ’s contrary interpretation is reasonable. Singh v. Ashcroft, 398
F.3d 396, 402 (6th Cir. 2005). Lastly, Ji’s argument that these inconsistencies were too “trivial” to
erode her credibility misapplies the REAL ID Act, which allows courts to consider “all relevant
factors,” not just those that go to the heart of the petitioner’s claims. Hachem v. Holder, 656 F.3d
430, 434 (6th Cir. 2011). The BIA’s decision stands because the record supplies substantial evidence
for its credibility assessment.
C. Asylum Eligibility
The BIA also concluded that Ji’s statements, even if credited, fell below the standard required
to receive asylum—a demonstration of either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a). In challenging this conclusion, Ji
makes no attempt to distinguish her case from others in which petitioners have suffered greater harm
and yet still been denied asylum for lack of persecution. See Mohammed v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 369,
371-72 (6th Cir. 2007) (three-day detention, kicking and slapping by police insufficient); Pilica v.
Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 954 (6th Cir. 2004) (same, police beating resulting in week-long
- 6 -

-- 6 of 8 --

No. 12-3849
Ji v. Holder
hospitalization). Ji also overlooks the State Department’s country conditions report suggesting
religious leaders are the ones who face possible persecution. Because she conceded that she never
occupied a leadership position, the BIA reasonably declined to presume persecution. See Ramaj v.
Gonzales, 466 F.3d 520, 531 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding that, even if a rebuttable presumption of
persecution applies, country reports provide “substantial evidence” to overcome the presumption).
The BIA’s denial of Ji’s asylum claim rests on substantial evidence and nothing she points to in the
record compels a different result.
D. Withholding of Removal and CAT
Ji’s withholding of removal and CAT claims also lack merit. To qualify for withholding of
removal, Ji must demonstrate that “it is more likely than not that [her] life or freedom would be
threatened if [she] returned to [China] on account of [her] race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Vincent v. Holder, 632 F.3d 351, 354 (6th Cir.
2011) (citing 8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)). This “clear probability” standard
requires “a greater quantum of proof . . . as to the likelihood of persecution” than asylum.
Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 544-45 (6th Cir. 2003). Unable to carry asylum’s lesser
burden of proof, Ji’s claim also fails the more stringent standard. To obtain relief under the CAT,
Ji must show “it is more likely than not that . . . she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). At most, the record suggests Ji risks “embarrassment”
or “harassment” if she returns to China, neither of which rises to the level of torture. Thus, we see
- 7 -

-- 7 of 8 --

No. 12-3849
Ji v. Holder
no reason to disturb BIA’s decision.
III.
We DENY Ji’s petition for review.
- 8 -

-- 8 of 8 --