Thirteen years ago, a political asylum fraud case that shocked the Chinese community in New York, although long settled and the involved lawyers have been convicted and served their sentences, continues to have a lingering domino effect. On May 5th, the New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a petition for review from a Chinese immigrant surnamed He, affirming that the immigration agency had “clear and convincing” evidence to support her deportation order.
According to a joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2012, multiple immigration law firms in Manhattan’s Chinatown were suspected of mass-producing fraudulent asylum applications, fabricating stories for clients from China since 2010, which were submitted to immigration authorities. By the end of that year, dozens of people, including lawyers and assistants, were arrested, and many faced charges.
Among them, Chinese immigrant lawyer John Wang was accused of being the most prolific in the fraud scheme, as his law firm had submitted over 1300 asylum applications to the New York asylum office in just two years. In late 2013, he pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to commit fraud.
However, the impact of the case extends far beyond the realm of criminal convictions. According to immigration officials, about 3500 immigrants who applied for asylum through the implicated law firms may now face the risk of having their green card applications denied, naturalization blocked, or even being deported. Ms. He is one such case.
According to court documents, Ms. He had successfully obtained political asylum but when applying for adjustment of status to green card, her asylum application was deemed “fraudulent and without merit,” leading to a ruling for her deportation. In 2022, an immigration judge determined that she had obtained asylum status through fraudulent means and rejected her request for a reevaluation in 2023. She subsequently filed a review petition with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which was officially rejected this week.
The appellate court found that the Department of Homeland Security had presented sufficient evidence to prove that she had obtained asylum through fraudulent means, thus classifying her as “inadmissible” when seeking an adjustment of status, providing legal grounds for her deportation. The court cited several pieces of evidence to support its decision, including:
(1) Poor law firm reputation: Ms. He’s asylum application was handled by Wang’s law firm, and Wang had been convicted for systemic fraud;
(2) Similarity in written statements: Ms. He’s English statement was highly similar in content, specific wording, and format to statements from other clients of Wang’s law firm, using legal terminology unlikely to be used by someone not familiar with asylum law, which contradicted her claim of “personally drafting” the statement;
(3) Contradictory statements: She claimed to have been fined for family planning when adjusting her green card status, which was inconsistent with her original asylum application content;
(4) Contradiction in visiting China and asylum reasons: She returned to China for an extended two-month period shortly after being granted asylum, conflicting with her initial claim of fearing to return to her home country.
Ms. He repeatedly claimed during the proceedings that her statements were true, and argued that she had no contact with Lawyer Wang, and that her original Chinese statement was entirely self-written and that she had never reviewed the English translation. Regarding the similarity between the English version and other applications, she claimed that others had “plagiarized her content.”
However, the court noted that she had signed a sworn statement confirming the accuracy of the translation and was unable to point out specific differences between the Chinese and English versions when questioned, thus her assertion of being “responsible for the Chinese but not for the English translated content” was not credible.
Ms. He claimed not to know that John Wang was involved in her asylum application, but the court pointed out that she had been informed before the asylum interview that Wang was her lawyer and had not objected. Court records showed that Wang’s name was listed on the asylum application form, and he attended the interview as the preparer of the application, as the applicant affirmed familiarity with its contents. The court believed that if her claim were true, she should have questioned having a stranger act as her lawyer, but she had not reacted at any point. Furthermore, her statements were highly similar to those of Wang’s other clients, which could not be reasonably explained nor proved the claim of being “plagiarized by someone else.”
Regarding her claim of returning to China to visit her seriously ill father, the court pointed out that the “hospital discharge certificate” she provided had blank periods regarding her father’s hospital stay, and the testimony was illogical (such as claiming to live at her aunt’s house, only visiting the hospital at night without explaining any restrictions on visiting hours), coupled with her ability to freely use her Chinese passport to travel in and out of the country, conflicting with her assertion of being “sought after by Chinese authorities,” further weakening her credibility.
Moreover, the court also rejected her objection to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) refusal for a rehearing, deeming the institution had made a reasonable decision within its discretion. Considering all the evidence and facts, the appellate court ultimately ruled that Ms. He’s asylum application lacked credibility and constituted sufficient grounds for her deportation.