Nan Jiang v. Jefferson Sessions , 696 F. App'x 847 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 30 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAN JIANG; ZHU JI; XIAO XIAO No. 13-71266
JIANG,
Agency Nos. A089-893-237
Petitioners, A089-893-238
A089-893-239
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 28, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and ILLSTON,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Nan Jiang (“Jiang”), Zhu Ji, and Xiao Xiao Jiang petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Jiang’s applications for asylum and withholding of
removal.1 We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision. See Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). The IJ noted discrepancies between Jiang’s
testimony and other evidence in the record, and determined that Jiang should
provide corroborating evidence of his regular church attendance in the United
States and proof that his child, petitioner Xiao Xiao Jiang, lived in Hawaii.
“Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide
evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be
provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably
obtain the evidence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). If the IJ requires
corroboration, “the IJ must give the applicant notice of the corroboration that is
required and an opportunity either to produce the requisite corroborative evidence
or to explain why that evidence is not reasonably available.” Ren v. Holder, 648
F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011).
1
Zhu Ji, Jiang’s spouse, and Xiao Xiao Jiang, Jiang’s child, are
derivative beneficiaries of Jiang’s asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3).
2
Jiang was given notice of the IJ’s decision and a two-day continuance of the
hearing to allow him the opportunity to obtain the required evidence. Jiang
submitted an additional letter regarding his church attendance, but the IJ found this
evidence was also inconsistent with his testimony. Jiang had testified that he
would be able to bring his child to court, but he did not do so and offered no
explanation for his failure to present his child or other evidence that she lived in
Hawaii.2 The IJ and BIA concluded that such evidence was reasonably obtainable,
and a reasonable trier of fact would not be compelled to conclude that
corroborating evidence was unavailable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1047. In light of Jiang’s failure to provide available corroborating
evidence, a reasonable trier of fact would not be compelled to find that Jiang met
his burden of proof.
Jiang failed to establish that he qualified for the requested relief, and the
court need not review the additional reasons for the denial of his applications or the
alternative finding that Jiang, even if credible, failed to establish past persecution
or a well-founded fear of future persecution in China.
The petition for review is DENIED.
2
Jiang also failed to challenge this basis of the denial in his petition for
review.
3