Hui Lin Huang v. Holder
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
677 F.3d 130 (2012)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Hui Lin Huang and her husband, Zeng Yong Zhou (the couple) (plaintiffs), left their native China and entered the United States, where their two children were born. When the couple applied for asylum, an immigration judge found that if the couple returned to China, they would probably be fined, and the wife sterilized, for having violated China's one-child limit on family size. The judge found that these penalties amounted to persecution and that because the couple's fear of that persecution was credible, ruled that the couple was entitled to asylum. The Department of Homeland Security appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, an agency within the Department of Justice, which was headed by Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. (defendant). The board ruled that the judge's findings were not findings as to existing facts—and therefore reversible only for clear error—but only predictions of future events. The board reviewed the judge's findings de novo and concluded that, measured against any objective standard, the couple's fear of persecution was not credible. The board denied the couple's application for asylum. The couple appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the propriety of the board's de novo review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.