Meihua Zhang v. Jefferson Sessions , 694 F. App'x 552 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JUL 21 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    MEIHUA ZHANG,                                    No. 13-71279
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A099-890-060
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 27, 2017**
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    Meihua Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
    immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
    Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
    evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lai v. Holder, 
    773 F.3d 966
    , 970 (9th Cir.
    2014) (citing Garcia v. Holder, 
    749 F.3d 785
    , 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). We grant the
    petition for review and remand.
    The record compels the conclusion that the IJ did not provide Zhang
    adequate notice of the corroboration required to supplement her credible testimony
    and an opportunity to explain the reasonable availability of such evidence. See Ren
    v. Holder, 
    648 F.3d 1079
    , 1093 (9th Cir. 2011); 
    Lai, 773 F.3d at 975
    –76
    (concluding that reliance on failure to provide corroborating evidence was
    procedurally improper where applicant never received notice of a need to produce
    the corroborative evidence identified in the IJ’s decision or an opportunity to either
    produce the evidence or explain its unavailability). We note that the IJ did not
    have the benefit of Ren because it was issued after her decision but before the
    BIA’s decision. We therefore remand for further proceedings consistent with this
    disposition.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and REMANDED.
    2                                    13-71279
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-71279

Citation Numbers: 694 F. App'x 552

Judges: Thomas, Hawkins, McKeown

Filed Date: 7/21/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024