Ren v. Holder
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
648 F.3d 1079 (2011)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Yaogang Ren (plaintiff) came to the United States (defendant) on a nonimmigrant visa and petitioned for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The basis of Ren’s claim was that he had become a Christian while in China and had been persecuted by the state for his religious beliefs. Ren claimed to have been arrested, detained for multiple days, interrogated, beaten, and otherwise abused by police officials in China prior to fleeing the country. During the immigration proceedings, there were some inconsistencies between Ren’s written statements and his verbal testimony before the immigration judge regarding specific dates on which some events occurred. The immigration judge issued a five-month continuance for Ren to provide corroborating evidence, including a bail receipt for his release from detention in China and a letter from his pastor and a baptismal certificate in the United States. After Ren failed to provide this evidence, the immigration judge held that Ren’s testimony was not credible, based on the inconsistencies and because the judge found his knowledge of Christianity to be insufficient, and denied his petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision, and Ren’s appeal came before the Ninth Circuit court of appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reinhardt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.