NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Fuj i an, China petitions for review of the Board of Immigra tion

Appeals ’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) den ial of his

application s 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 APPEALS2

arrested him pri or 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 evidentia ry 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 mark s omitted). Where the IJ finds “ the testimony is not

sufficient by itself, then the IJ may require corroborati ve evidence. ” Wang

, 861 F.3d

at 1009. When requested, “such evidence must be provi ded unless the

applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the3

evidence.” Ren v. Holder , 648 F.3d 1079, 10 90

– 91 (9th Cir. 2011) ( quoting 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)). Failure to provide sufficient c orroborating evidence is an

“alte rnative 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 claim s , they do not directly address key portions of his prior

testimony regarding his sp ecific 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 d ocument 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. H older , 589 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir.

2009).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED

.