1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 12-2313 & 12-3819

___________

BING ZHE SUN,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A075-753-021)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Rosalind K. Malloy

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 24, 2013

Before: FISHER, GARTH and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 25, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Bing Zhe Sun petitions for review of his final order of removal and the order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion for reconsideration and 
2

reopening. We will deny the petitions.

I.

Sun is a citizen of China who entered the United States in 2001 and who concedes 

that he is removable for overstaying his visa. Sun applied for asylum, withholding of 

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture on the grounds that Chinese 

officials persecuted him for practicing Falun Gong and that he fears such persecution in 

the future. In his application, Sun claimed that Chinese officials interrogated, “hit” and 

“tortured” him and placed him jail to await trial, where he remained until his family 

“bailed [him] out.” In an updated application filed by different counsel, Sun provided a 

somewhat different account, claiming that Chinese officials (on a different date) beat 

him, shocked him with an electric baton and pulled his tongue with pliers. He further 

claimed that his brother-in-law was a high-ranking official and secured his release after 

six hours, and that he was hospitalized for one week thereafter.

At his hearing, Sun testified consistently with his updated application and offered 

some evidence that he practices Falun Gong in the United States. He also testified that 

his visible facial scars were caused by his beating in China. The Immigration Judge 

(“IJ”) denied Sun‟s claims for lack of corroboration, and the BIA agreed and dismissed 

his appeal. Through still different counsel, Sun both petitioned this Court for review and 

filed a motion for reconsideration and reopening with the BIA, which the BIA denied. 
3

Sun petitions for review of that ruling as well.

1

II.

Sun raises two primary challenges to his underlying order of removal. He argues 

first that the IJ and BIA erred in relying on the statement he submitted with his first 

application and should have deemed him credible. Sun did not raise any argument 

regarding reliance on his initial application before the BIA in either his appeal or his 

motion to reconsider and reopen, and he cites no authority in support of his arguments on 

that point on review. As the Government argues, however, we need not address them 

because, even if Sun is assumed to be credible, the BIA‟s conclusion that he failed to 

adequately corroborate his claim is independently dispositive as explained in the margin.

2

 

1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA‟s order of 

removal but may look to that of the IJ to the extent that the BIA affirmed the IJ‟s 

conclusions. See Sandie v. Att‟y Gen., 562 F.3d 246, 250 (3d Cir. 2009). We review 

factual findings for substantial evidence and treat them as “„conclusive unless any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.‟” Id. at 251 

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We review legal issues de novo. See id. We review 

the denial of motions for reconsideration and reopening for abuse of discretion. See

Pllumi v. Att‟y Gen., 642 F.3d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 2011).

2 Neither the IJ nor the BIA made an express credibility determination. The IJ noted 

several inconsistencies between Sun‟s testimony and his first application, but she also 

stated that he testified credibly regarding the history of Falun Gong in China and 

identified the lack of corroboration as the “greater weakness” of his case. (IJ Dec. at 16.) 

The BIA concluded that the IJ “effectively determined that [Sun] did not present a 

credible claim,” but the BIA also went on to conclude that, “moreover,” Sun had not 

corroborated his claim. (BIA Sept. 25, 2012 Dec. at 1-2.) There is thus no indication that 

either the IJ‟s or BIA‟s corroboration analysis was influenced by the issue of credibility 

in any way. Compare Miah v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 434, 440 (3d Cir. 2003) (remanding 

where BIA reversed IJ‟s adverse credibility determination but adopted IJ‟s corroboration 

analysis that was expressly based on that credibility determination), with Sandie, 562 
4

Sun challenges the BIA‟s corroboration analysis as well. The substantive 

provision of the REAL ID Act regarding corroboration does not apply in this case, but 

even before the REAL ID Act we recognized that credible applicants may be required to 

submit corroborating evidence so long as the agency undertakes the requisite three-part 

inquiry. See Sandie, 562 F.3d at 252-53. The agency did so in this case and concluded 

that Sun had not adequately corroborated either his claim about past mistreatment in 

China or his practice of Falun Gong in the United States. With regard to Sun‟s claim of 

past mistreatment, the IJ and BIA concluded that he did not present any evidence 

corroborating his claim at all—i.e., any statements from his brother-in-law or family 

members remaining in China, any records of the medical treatment he claimed to receive 

in China, or any medical records from a doctor in the United States regarding the possible 

cause of his scars. With regard to Sun‟s practice of Falun Gong in the United States, the 

IJ concluded that Sun presented no statements or testimony from any Falun Gong leaders 

and no testimony from fellow Falun Gong practitioners.

Sun raises what we construe as two arguments on this issue. First, he argues that 

the evidence he submitted made it unreasonable for the agency to require more. That 

evidence consisted of statements from two Falun Gong practitioners in the United States 

and photographs of Sun at what he claimed were two Falun Gong events. Sun 

characterizes the agency‟s decision to require more evidence as “nitpicking,” but we 

 

F.3d at 251-52 (distinguishing Miah and holding that the BIA is not required to address 

credibility where the IJ‟s corroboration analysis did not depend on credibility).
5

disagree. As the IJ explained, none of this evidence corroborates Sun‟s claim about past 

mistreatment in China. Sun argues that his facial scars constitute sufficient 

corroboration, but it was not unreasonable for the IJ to require some evidence of how 

they were caused. See Sandie, 562 F.3d at 253 (declining to disturb IJ‟s requirement that 

alien corroborate origin of a scar on his back).

Second, Sun also argues that the agency unreasonably rejected his explanations for 

failing to provide more evidence. The IJ and BIA adequately addressed those 

explanations, and Sun‟s arguments in this regard are not persuasive. For example, Sun 

testified before the IJ that he had not requested any statements from relatives in China out 

of fear that the Chinese government monitors their telephone calls and had not requested

any testimony from Falun Gong practitioners in the United States because they too fear 

Chinese surveillance. He ultimately testified that he had not requested medical records 

from China for the same reason. The IJ found Sun‟s explanations implausible and noted 

that Chinese Falun Gong petitioners frequently introduce such evidence in support of 

their claims. Sun essentially repeats his explanations on review, but we cannot say that 

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to accept them. Indeed, Sun‟s 

explanations would essentially excuse Chinese Falun Gong practitioners from offering 

any corroborating evidence of this nature. Cf. Dong v. Att‟y Gen., 638 F.3d 223, 230 (3d 

Cir. 2011) (addressing Chinese petitioner‟s submission of, inter alia, a family member‟s 

statement and medical records from China and medical records from the United States).

Finally, Sun challenges the BIA‟s denial of his motion for reconsideration and 
6

reopening. Sun argues that the BIA‟s ruling was influenced by its previous reliance on 

his initial asylum application. There is no indication that such is the case, however, and 

even if there were Sun did not challenge the agency‟s reliance on his initial application in 

either his appeal to the BIA or his motion for reconsideration and reopening. Sun also 

asserts that the BIA failed to adequately address his evidence, but he does not specify 

what he believes the BIA overlooked and our review of the record reveals no abuse of 

discretion in this regard. To the contrary, the BIA reasonably explained that Sun‟s 

additional evidence raises additional concerns because the two statements he submitted 

refer to the individual who allegedly secured his release as his “nephew,” not his brotherin-law as Sun testified, and were otherwise inconsistent with his explanations for not 

submitting evidence before. Sun acknowledges these concerns but does not address them 

except to blame them on the “difficulties and pitfalls” of seeking documents from 

overseas and the IJ‟s decision to require corroboration in the first place. (Pet‟r‟s Br. at 29 

n.7.) We are not persuaded.

For these reasons, we will deny Sun‟s petitions for review. Sun‟s request for oral 

argument is denied as well.