15-3369 

Xia v. Lynch 

BIA 

Wright, IJ 

A201 133 913

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED 

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 

32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED 

WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE 

(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY 

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

1st 4 day of December, two thousand sixteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 YUNKUAN XIA, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 15-3369 

17 NAC 

18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Louis H. Klein, The Kasen Law Firm, 

24 PLLC, Flushing, N.Y. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

27 Assistant Attorney General; Mary 

28 Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; 

29 Michael C. Heyse, Trial Attorney, 

30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

31 United States Department of Justice, 

32 Washington, D.C. 
2 

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

4 DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Yunkuan Xia, a native and citizen of the 

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 24, 2015 

7 decision of the BIA affirming a July 17, 2012 decision of an 

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of 

9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

10 (“CAT”). In re Yunkuan Xia, No. A201 133 913 (B.I.A. Sept. 24, 

11 2015), aff’g No. A201 133 913 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 17, 

12 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

13 facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 

15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 

16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 

17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 

18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Chuilu 

19 Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009). 

20 To qualify for asylum, Xia was required to demonstrate that 

21 he suffered past persecution on account of his resistance to 

22 the family planning policy or that he has a well-founded fear 
3 

1 of forced sterilization. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R. 

2 § 1208.16(b); see also Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 

3 494 F.3d 296, 305-06, 309-10, 313 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that 

4 alien cannot obtain asylum based on harm suffered by a spouse). 

5 The agency did not err in finding that Xia’s burden was not 

6 satisfied because he failed to submit reasonably available 

7 corroborating evidence. 

8 “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to 

9 sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only 

10 if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the 

11 applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers 

12 to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant 

13 is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Chuilu 

14 Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97. In this case, it was reasonable for 

15 the agency to require corroboration because Xia’s testimony was 

16 not sufficiently detailed to be persuasive. See 8 U.S.C. 

17 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that 

18 the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates 

19 otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided 

20 unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot 

21 reasonably obtain the evidence.”); see also Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d 

22 at 196-97. Moreover, the agency properly identified the 
4 

1 missing evidence, noting that Xia failed to submit his marriage 

2 certificate, a sterilization notice, or statements from any 

3 family or friends. Even crediting Xia’s explanations that he 

4 did not want to bother his wife, who suffers from depression, 

5 and that he did not keep the sterilization notice from 1999, 

6 he failed to explain why he could not obtain his marriage 

7 certificate or corroborating statements from his relatives with 

8 whom he maintains contact. See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 198 

9 (“[T]he alien bears the ultimate burden of introducing such 

10 evidence without prompting from the IJ.”). 

11 Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Xia 

12 failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating past persecution 

13 or a well-founded fear of future persecution under the family 

14 planning policy. See id. at 196-98. That finding is 

15 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 

16 because all three forms of relief were based on Xia’s family 

17 planning claim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1), 

18 1208.16(b)(1)-(2), (c)(3); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 

19 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

22 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 
5 

1 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

2 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

3 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

4 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

5 34.1(b). 

6 FOR THE COURT: 

7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk