Fuli Zhang v. Lynch

13-4703
Zhang v. Lynch
BIA
Wright, IJ
A200 922 480
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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 7th day of August, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
FULI ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v. 13-4703
NAC
LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Todd L. Platek, Flushing, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General; Margaret Kuehne Taylor,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Jacob A.
Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington DC
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.
Fuli Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of a November 14, 2013,
decision of the BIA affirming the March 13, 2012, decision
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). In re Fuli Zhang, No. A200 922 480 (B.I.A.
Nov. 14, 2013), aff’g No. A200 922 480 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
Mar. 13, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We have reviewed the decisions of the IJ and the BIA
“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The
applicable standards of review are well established. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
“While consistent, detailed, and credible testimony may
be sufficient to carry the alien’s burden, evidence
corroborating his story, or an explanation for its absence,
may be required where it would reasonably be expected.”
2
Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285 (2d Cir. 2000); see
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C).
Before denying a claim solely based on an applicant’s
failure to provide corroborating evidence, the IJ must,
either in her decision or otherwise in the record: (1)
identify the specific pieces of missing, relevant
documentation and explain why the documentation was
reasonably available; (2) provide the petitioner an
opportunity to explain the omission; and (3) assess any
explanation given. Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 198
(2d Cir. 2009). However, “the alien bears the ultimate
burden of introducing such evidence without prompting from
the IJ.” Id. Here, the agency reasonably determined that
Zhang failed to adequately corroborate his claim.
First, the IJ reasonably gave diminished weight to an
unsworn letter prepared by Zhang’s wife for his case. See
Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d
Cir. 2006). Further, the IJ reasonably considered Zhang’s
failure to produce corroborating statements from his fellow
protesters, who numbered more than fifty and who had been
his neighbors from his birth in 1970 to 2005. The agency
was also not compelled to credit Zhang’s conflicting and
3
speculative explanations as to why he could not obtain this
evidence. See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 197-99.
The IJ also reasonably considered Zhang’s failure to
produce a letter from the neighbor who photographed him
holding a banner allegedly at a protest. As the IJ
observed, Zhang’s explanation that he lost contact with the
photographer conflicted with his statement that the
photographer loaded the photographs onto a website and then
sent Zhang a link to that website. Moreover, the IJ did not
err in giving the photographs little weight because,
although they showed protestors holding banners, the banners
were not translated into English. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471
F.3d at 342. Similarly, although Zhang submitted
photographs of a demolished area, the IJ reasonably noted
that he was not sure if the photographed area included the
location of his former house and he did not have any
photographs of the house before its demolition.
Further, the IJ reasonably considered Zhang’s failure
to offer any corroborating evidence to support his assertion
that he currently suffers from arthritis as a result of the
beating he sustained. Although Zhang submitted evidence
that he went to the hospital in China for a soft tissue
injury to his leg, the agency did not err in determining
4
that Zhang failed to offer reasonably available
corroborating evidence to support his assertion that he
continues to suffer medical problems in the United States.
See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 197-99.
Accordingly, a reasonable fact-finder would not be
compelled to conclude that Zhang satisfied his burden of
providing reasonably available evidence to corroborate his
claim of past persecution and a fear of future harm arising
out of that incident. See id., at 196-99. Therefore, the
agency did not err in denying Zhang asylum and withholding
of removal, see id.; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
148, 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006), and we decline to address the
agency’s alternative grounds for denying those forms of
relief. Zhang also advances no specific challenge to the
agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Yueqing Zhang v.
Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5