Kun Chen v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KUN CHEN, No. 18-72467
Petitioner, Agency No. A209-875-791
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 15, 2020
Portland, Oregon
Before: BYBEE and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and CHHABRIA,** District
Judge.
Kun Chen of Fujian, China petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Chen testified before the IJ that Chinese police
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
arrested him prior to services commencing at his first Christian gathering. Chen
claimed that the police detained him for a month, beat him, deprived him of food,
and after his release harassed him daily for the next six months. The IJ asked for
documents to corroborate this testimony, and Chen provided unauthenticated copies
of medical and detention records with a brief affidavit from his parents. The IJ
determined Chen’s testimony was not credible and his corroborating documents
were insufficient to meet his evidentiary burden. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial
of Chen’s petition for all three forms of relief on the latter ground—that Chen’s
corroborating documents were inadequate to carry his burden of proof.
“We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for
substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial,
and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Wang v. Sessions, 861
F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “A finding
by the IJ is not supported by substantial evidence when any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary based on the evidence in the record.”
Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). Where the IJ finds “the testimony is not
sufficient by itself, then the IJ may require corroborative evidence.” Wang, 861 F.3d
at 1009. When requested, “such evidence must be provided unless the
applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the
2
evidence.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)). Failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence is an
“alternative ground” on which applications may be denied. Id. at 1089.
The BIA’s determination regarding the corroborating evidence is supported
by substantial evidence. Though Chen’s corroborating documents provide some
support for his claims, they do not directly address key portions of his prior
testimony regarding his specific mistreatment. The IJ and the BIA justifiably
afforded Chen’s unauthenticated photocopies little weight because Chen could not
explain how the documents were obtained or sent to his counsel. “Immigration
judges retain broad discretion to accept a document as authentic or not based on the
particular factual showing presented.” Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th
Cir. 2007). Given the “highly deferential standard of review,” we are not compelled
to reverse the BIA’s determination. Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir.
2009).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
3