United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3800

___________

Yun Jin Jiang, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States, * (UNPUBLISHED)

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: October 22, 2004

Filed: December 2, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Yun Jin Jiang, a citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an Immigration Judge's denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Jurisdiction being proper under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), this court denies her petition. 
-2-

Jiang presents three issues to this court. First, she challenges the IJ's and the

BIA's adverse credibility findings. This court reviews such credibility findings for

substantial evidence, and defers to an IJ's adverse credibility finding if supported by

specific, cogent reasons for disbelief. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th

Cir. 2004). 

 In this case, the IJ and the BIA discredited Jiang's testimony about the central

aspects of her asylum claim: specifically, her contradictory testimony regarding when

her husband left China, and her claimed ignorance of his current whereabouts – both

of which relate to her alleged abortion and separate pregnancies.

The IJ and the BIA also found Jiang's documentary evidence deserved little or

no credibility because: 1) she failed to lay an adequate foundation for how she

acquired the documents; 2) the documents were not certified pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 

§ 287.6; and 3) the U.S. Department of State's "1998 Profile of Asylum Claims and

Country Conditions for China" established that documents from southeast China,

where Jiang's documents purportedly originate, are subject to widespread fraud and

fabrication.

The IJ and the BIA did not err in their credibility findings. The decision on

Jiang's asylum application is supported by substantial evidence. 

Second, Jiang contends that during the investigation into the authenticity of the

medical certificate she submitted, the Immigration and Naturalization Service

breached her right to confidentiality under 8 C.F.R. § 208.6, preventing the admission

into evidence of the INS's investigative report. Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.6, the INS has

an obligation to protect the confidentiality of asylum applicants. "Information

contained in or pertaining to any asylum application ... shall not be disclosed without

the written consent of the applicant . . . ." 8 C.F.R. § 208.6(a) (2004). "The
-3-

confidentiality of other records . . . that indicate that a specific alien has applied for

asylum shall also be protected from disclosure . . . ." 8 C.F.R. § 208.6(b) (2004).

Here, there is no evidence that during the investigation the INS informed the

Chinese government that Jiang was seeking asylum. The INS’s investigation did not

violate the regulation, nor did the IJ err in admitting the INS's report into evidence.

Third, Jiang argues that the BIA violated her due process rights guaranteed by

the Fifth Amendment by not giving her notice of the briefing deadline for the appeal

to the BIA.

To prevail on a claim alleging a violation of due process, prejudice must be

shown. Shoaira v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 837, 843 (8th Cir. 2004). This requires a

demonstration that defects in the deportation proceedings may well have resulted in

a deportation that would not otherwise have occurred. Al Khouri v. Ashcroft, 362

F.3d 461, 466 (8th Cir. 2004). Jiang failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice.

The BIA did not violate her right to due process. 

Accordingly, this court denies Jiang's petition.