The Implicit-Abandonment Rule in Credibility Appeals:
How Chen v. Bondi Strengthens Border-Interview Evidence and Clarifies Pattern-or-Practice Proof

1. Introduction

Chen v. Bondi, No. 23-6508 (2d Cir. Aug. 5 2025) is a summary order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection to Jian Chen, a Chinese national who claimed persecution on account of his Christian faith. Although designated “non-precedential,” the opinion nonetheless crystallises two practical rules now circulating among immigration advocates:

• Implicit Abandonment: A petitioner who fails to challenge the reliability of border and credible-fear interview notes on appeal is deemed to have abandoned that issue, leaving inconsistencies in those interviews free to support an adverse-credibility finding.
• Pattern-or-Practice Threshold: Evidence that “tens of millions” openly practise Christianity in China, combined with provincial variability in enforcement, falls short of showing the “systemic or pervasive” persecution required for a pattern-or-practice finding.

These holdings tighten the evidentiary screws on asylum applicants and sharpen attorneys’ duties in petition-for-review briefing.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit denied Chen’s petition for review, agreeing with both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that:

1. Adverse Credibility: Inconsistencies between Chen’s sworn testimony and his border interview as well as his credible-fear interview—particularly concerning his reasons for entering the United States and the dates of church attendance—were substantial. Lacking reliable corroboration, Chen’s story was deemed not credible.
2. No Well-Founded Fear: Because Chen was not credible about past persecution and could not prove either individualised risk or a pattern-or-practice of Christian persecution in China, he failed to meet the respective burdens for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
3. Procedural Forfeiture: By not contesting on appeal the IJ’s findings on interview reliability and documentary weight, Chen abandoned those issues (Debique v. Garland).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Singh v. Bondi, 139 F.4th 189 (2d Cir. 2025) and Bhagtana v. Garland, 93 F.4th 592 (2d Cir. 2023) – establish that the BIA’s decision is the primary focus on review, though IJ reasoning may supplement it when consistent.
• Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) – articulate the “totality of the circumstances” standard for adverse-credibility determinations and set the deferential “substantial evidence” review benchmark.
• Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) – holds that an applicant must show a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to accept his explanations for inconsistencies.
• Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007); Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2020); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) – govern corroboration expectations and the IJ’s discretion to assign diminished weight to unauthenticated or un-cross-examinable letters.
• In re A-M-, 23 I.&N. Dec. 737 (BIA 2005); Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) – define “pattern or practice” as “systemic or pervasive” persecution.
• Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) – clarifies that failure in asylum automatically defeats the higher standard for withholding and CAT where claims rely on the same facts.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

a. Adverse Credibility Framework
Section 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) permits an IJ to rely on any inconsistency, even if it does not “go to the heart” of the claim. The court reiterated that contradictions between:

• Border interview notes (no fear, came to find work) and hearing testimony (arrested and persecuted as a Christian), and
• Credible-fear interview (church attendance in February 2016) and testimony (no attendance after 2015 arrest)

are enough to render the applicant not credible when unaccompanied by reliable corroboration.

b. Forfeiture Through Silence (“Implicit Abandonment”)
Following Debique, the panel held that Chen’s failure to address the IJ’s findings on the reliability of interview records and the weight of unsworn letters constituted abandonment. This silence left the inconsistencies undisturbed and immune from appellate rescue.

c. Corroboration
The IJ discounted letters from Chen’s mother, friend, and school because the authors were unavailable for cross-examination and one letter was unsigned. Under Likai Gao and Y.C., that discretionary weighing was unassailable on review.

d. Pattern-or-Practice Analysis
Chen pivoted to a “pattern or practice” theory of Christian persecution in China. The panel found that the State Department’s 2017 International Religious Freedom Report—showing millions of Christians worshipping and variance in enforcement—demonstrated regulation but not systemic persecution. The decision underscores that applicants need evidence of widespread, province-agnostic, and government-sanctioned hostility to satisfy § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Heightened Counsel Obligations: Practitioners must specifically challenge the reliability of early-stage interview summaries and any negative weight assigned to documents. Silence equals forfeiture.
• Border & Credible-Fear Notes Elevated: The ruling reinforces that Form I-213 and credible-fear transcripts are potent impeachment tools even where inconsistencies are tangential.
• Tougher Pattern-or-Practice Showing: Generalised religious restrictions and isolated local crack-downs will rarely meet the “systemic or pervasive” standard; granular, country-wide evidence is essential.
• Influence Beyond Asylum: Because asylum, withholding, and CAT claims often share factual foundations, a credibility collapse in one almost inevitably sinks the others, unless independent torture evidence exists.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Adverse Credibility Finding: A formal determination that the applicant’s story is not believable, often fatal to asylum claims.
• Border Interview vs. Credible-Fear Interview: The first is a short questioning at entry; the second is a lengthier screening for asylum claims while in detention. Notes from both are routinely entered into evidence.
• Pattern or Practice: Proof that a whole group (not just the applicant) is routinely, pervasively persecuted by the government or forces the government is unable/unwilling to control.
• Withholding of Removal: A mandatory but narrower form of protection than asylum; requires a “clear probability” (≥50 %) of persecution.
• Convention Against Torture (CAT): International treaty protection against being returned to a country where one is “more likely than not” to be tortured by or with acquiescence of authorities.

5. Conclusion

Chen v. Bondi may be a summary order, yet its practical lessons resonate:

1. Inconsistencies captured in early DHS interviews are powerful; if unchallenged, they can alone uphold an adverse-credibility ruling.
2. Appeals must precisely contest the reliability of those interviews and the IJ’s evidentiary weight allocations, or such points are forfeited.
3. Pattern-or-practice asylum theories demand country-wide, systemic evidence; isolated regional repression and large numbers of practising believers tend to negate, not prove, pervasiveness.

Collectively, the case reinforces a meticulous, front-loaded approach to asylum advocacy and sets a cautionary precedent on the procedural pitfalls of “implicit abandonment.” Future litigants would be wise to treat Chen v. Bondi as a playbook on how—and how not—to preserve credibility challenges and pattern-or-practice claims in the Second Circuit.