NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MINGMING YIN,

Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 19

- 71092

Agency No. A201

- 212

- 072

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 19, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Mingming Yin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigra tion Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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). 

# FILED

JAN 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71092

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review , and we

remand.
In deciding Yin ’ s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA
assumed Yin was credible, determined she received sufficient opportunity to
explain her lack of corroborating evidence, and denied relief based on finding that
Yin failed to adequately corroborate her claims. The BIA did not addres s whether
the IJ provided Yin proper notice that corroboration was required , and this was

error

. See Ren v. Holder , 648 F.3d 1079, 10 9 3 (9th Cir. 2011) ( setting out the
sequential analysis an IJ must follow when corroborating evidence is required of

an otherwise credible applicant, including th at “ the IJ must give the applicant

notice of the corroboration that is required ”). Further, t he BIA’s determination that

Yin was afforded a sufficient opportunity to corroborate her claim is unsupported.

See id. at 10 9 2 ( “demanding corroboration immediately on the day of the hearing

would raise serious due process concerns by depriving an applicant of his
guarantee of a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his behalf.” (internal

citation and quotation mar ks omitted) ) ; see also Lai v. Holder , 773 F.3d 966, 975

-

76 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that reliance on failure to provide corroborating
evidence was procedurally improper where applicant never received notice of a3 19

- 71092

need to produce the corroborative evidenc e identified in the IJ’s decision or an
opportunity to either produce the evidence or explain its unavailability). Thus, w e
grant the petition for review as to Yin’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims
, and we remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition. See INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d

272 (2002) (per curiam).
As to Yin’s CAT claim, the BIA assumed she provided sufficient
corroborating evidence and denied her claim based on the failure to meet her
burden of proof. S ubstantial evidence supports that determination because Yin
failed to show it is more likely than not s he will be tortured by or with the consent
or acquiescence of the government if retu rned to China

. See Aden v. Holder , 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Yin’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.
The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;

REMANDED.