Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207496/Shao-Yan-v-Eric-Holder-Jr-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:50:02+00:00

Document:
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
deny the petition for review.
to [a]void getting married with a guy.
kicked her younger brother when he tried to intervene.
official, and they protect each other.
forced to marry the village chiefs nephew.
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
that she had been forced to undergo an abortion in China.
marry if she returned to China.
and a letter from her boyfriend describing the same.
she didnt think about it.
loss in the letter she wrote to support Yans application.
acquire documentary evidence in support of her claims.
performed on Yan in this hospital on July 2.
denied Yans application for relief.
it was purportedly issued in 2005, it bore a 2002 issuance date.
on account of a protected ground.
the person who wants to marry her.
protected categories for asylum or withholding of removal.
establishing eligibility for asylum. 440 F.3d at 70-71.
transferred to an IJ in Arlington, Virginia.
remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Gonzales v.
Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006) (per curiam).
ordered her removed to China.
whole the September 2005 IJ Decision denying Yans applications.
that reconsideration in light of Gao was no longer necessary.
that she had a forced abortion in China.
Cir. 2007); see 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(4)(B)-(D).
Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir.
has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of .
. . membership in a particular social group . . . .
1208.13(b); see Nazigi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
well-founded fear of future persecution.
371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004).
on a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir.
1999) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Berrotean-Melendez v.
See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir.
rather simply expressed doubts as to her credibility.
testimony is of a credible nature . . . .
that the IJ had made an adverse credibility finding.
appeal of the Boards decision.).
verify . . . births and birth control measures.
See Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 273-75.
under the prior standards. See Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 274 n.1.
chiefs nephews attempts to marry her.
subjected to forced marriage should she return to China.
dispositive ruling as to this claim.
an IJ within the Second Circuit.
binding impact of Gao on Yans claims.
arising outside the Second Circuit).
judgment below, and remanding the case for reconsideration.
not err in agreeing with that assessment.
has not demonstrated that she suffered past persecution.
treatment that our society regards as offensive.
return to her native country.
from a concession by Yans counsel during oral argument.
she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
See Thomas, 547 at 185-87; INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
on a clear question of law rather than fact.
'rare circumstances' exception applies."); see also id. at 15758.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.