Mingshu Yuan v. Holder

10-4762-ag
Yuan v. Holder
BIA
Elstein, IJ
A094 785 339
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING
A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE
FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”).
A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 26th day of April, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
PETER W. HALL,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
MINGSHU YUAN
Petitioner,
v. 10-4762-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Ke-en Wang, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Anthony Cardozo Payne,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Collete
J. Winston, Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington
D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Mingshu Yuan, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of the October 29, 2010,
order of the BIA affirming the October 28, 2008, decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mingshu
Yuan, No. A094 785 339 (B.I.A. Oct. 29, 2010), aff’g No.
No. A094 785 339 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 28, 2008). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have
considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. Zaman v.
Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the
IJ’s factual findings under the substantial evidence
standard and review questions of law de novo. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d
Cir. 2008).
2
Yuan argues that she established her eligibility for
relief because she and her family provided assistance to her
aunt, a North Korean national who crossed the border into
China, and that as a result her parents were arrested,
beaten, and released only upon the payment of a fine. The
agency found, inter alia, that Yuan failed to meet her
burden of proof because she did not provide reasonably
available corroborating evidence, including any
identification document for her aunt, any letter from her
aunt, a receipt for the fine paid, or any confirmation from
family members indicating that her parents were beaten.
Although an applicant’s credible testimony alone may be
enough to carry her burden of proof, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.13(a), an IJ may nonetheless require that her
testimony be corroborated if one would reasonably expect
corroborating evidence to be available, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). “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.” Id.; 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(C) (incorporating this standard, by reference,
in the rules governing withholding of removal); Chuilu Liu
v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196-99 (2d Cir. 2009).
3
Yuan does not challenge the agency’s corroboration
finding, and thus has waived any such challenge. See
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7
(2d Cir. 2005) (concluding that issues not sufficiently
argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will
not be addressed on appeal). Because the agency’s finding
that Yuan failed to meet her burden of proof by failing to
provide reasonably available corroborating evidence is
dispositive of her claims of asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT relief, and because Yuan does not challenge that
finding, we will not disturb the agency’s denial of relief.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C);
Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-99.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the temporary stay
of removal that the Court previously granted in this
petition is VACATED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4