NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KUN CHEN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72467 

Agency No. A209-875-791 

MEMORANDUM*

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.

FILED

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

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 
3 

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.