Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure * 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substitutedas re spo nde nt in thi s c ase . 07- 020 4-ag Liuv. Ho lde r 1 UNI TEDSTATE S COURT OF APPEALS 2 3 FOR THE S ECOND CIRCUI T 4 5 Aug ustTe rm, 20 07 6 7 (Ar gue d: Nov emb er 28, 20 07 Dec ide d: Aug ust5, 20 09) 8 9 Doc ketNo . 0 7-0 204 -ag 10 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 13 CHU ILULI U, 14 15 Pet iti one r, 16 17 18 - v .- 19 ERI C H . H OLD ER JR. , 20 21 Uni tedSt ate s A tto rne y G ene ral , * 22 Res pon den t. 23 24 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 26 Bef ore : JAC OBS , C hie f Judg e, PARKERan d WESL EY, 27 28 Cir cui t Judg es. 29 30 Pet iti on forre vie w o f afi nal or derofth e B oar d o f 31 Imm igr ati on App eal s a ffi rmi ng the de cis ionofImmig rat ion 32 Jud ge Wil liam J ank un den yin g L iu’ s a ppl ica tio n f or 33 wit hho ldi ng of rem ova l p urs uan t t o 8 U. S.C . §12 31( b)( 3) 34 for , i nte r a lia , f ail ure topr ovi de ade qua te cor rob ora tio n. 35 The pe tit ionfo r r evi ew is den ied .2 1 JIM LI, New York, NY , F OR 2 PET ITI ONE R. 3 4 KEITH MCMANUS, Trial Attorney 5 (Peter D. Keisler, Assistant 6 Attorney General, on the brief, 7 Lisa Arnold and Shabana 8 Stationwala, of counsel), Office 9 of Immigration Litigation, Civil 10 Division, U.S. Department of 11 Justice, Washington, D.C. , F OR RES PON DEN T. 12 13 14 DENNIS JACOB S, Chi ef Jud ge: 15 Pet iti one r C hui lu Liu , ana tiv e a nd cit ize n o f t he 16 Peo ple ’s Rep ubl ic of Chi na, se eks re vie w o f aDe cember29 , 17 200 6 o rde r o f t he Boa rd of Imm igr ati on App eal s ( “BI A”) , 18 aff irm ingth e M ay 19, 20 05 dec isi on of Imm igr ati on Jud ge 19 (“I J”) Wi lli am F. Jan kun , whic h p ret erm itt ed Liu ’s 20 app lic ati on foras ylum a s u nti mel y a nd den iedhi s 21 app lic ati ons fo r w ith hol din g o f r emo val pu rsu antto8 U.S .C. 22 § 1 231 (b) (3) an d t he Con ven tio n Agai nstTo rtu re (“CAT” ). In 23 re Liu , N o. A98 41 5 3 74 (B. I.A . D ec. 29 , 2 006 ), aff ’g No. 24 A98 41 5 3 74 (Immig . C t. N.Y . C ityMa y 1 9, 200 5). The IJ 25 mad e a n a dve rse cr edi bil ityfi ndi ng tha t w as nei the r 26 aff irmed norexpre ssl y r eje cte d b y t he BIA . The BI A 27 aff irmed on the IJ ’s alt ern ati ve gro undth at Liufa ile d t o 28 sat isf y h is bur denofpr ooffo r l ackofce rta in doc ume nta ry 29 evi den ce cor rob ora tin g L iu’ s t est imo ny con cer nin g h is ris k3 1 of fut ure pe rse cut ion . Bec aus e s ubs tan tia l e vid enc e 2 sup por ts the IJ ’s fin din g t hatLi u f ail ed to sat isf y h is 3 bur denofes tab lis hin g acl earpr oba bil ityoffu tur e 4 per sec uti on in Chi na, an d t he IJ pro per ly rel iedonLi u’s 5 fai lur e t o c orr obo rat e h is tes tim onyinsofi ndi ng, Li u’s 6 pet iti on mus t b e d eni ed. 7 8 BACKGR OUND 9 At his Ma y 2 005 he ari ng bef ore th e I J, Liute sti fie d t o 10 the fo llo win g e ffe ct: F rom19 89 unt il 199 1, he was de tai ned 11 by the Ch ine se gov ernmen t f or his su ppo rt of the Ju ne Fou rth 12 Mov eme nt; aft er his re lea se, hi s w orkfo r a n e nvi ronmen tal 13 pro tec tio n c omp anyre qui redhi m t o t rav el fre que ntl y t o 14 Mac au andHo ng Kon g; on one ofth ose tr ips (i n June 20 01) , 15 he joi nedth e H ongKo ng you th mov eme nt, a pro -de moc rac y 16 gro up, la terbe com ingit s a cti ng sec ret ary ; h e t rav ele d t o 17 the Un ite d S tat es on bus ine ss (inJa nua ry 200 3), us inga 18 pas spo rt tha t t he Chi nes e g ove rnmentis sue d t o h im in 200 2; 19 he was pr eve nte d f romle avi ng the Un ite d S tat es as sch edu led 20 (inJa nua ry 200 3) by a c ar acc ide nt in Cal ifo rni a; soo n 21 the rea fte r, his wi fe in Chi na tol d h im by pho ne tha t 22 sec uri ty off ici als ha d c ome lo oki ng forhi m, andha d4 1 ran sac kedth eirho me on a r etu rn vis it. 2 At the cl ose ofth e h ear ing , t he IJ dic tat ed his 3 fin din gs andco ncl usi ons . The IJma de an adv ers e 4 cre dib ili ty fin din g, andwe nt on to dec ide th at eve n i f 5 Liu ’s tes tim onywe re cre dib le, “t her e i s ane ed for 6 sup por tin g d ocumen tat iontosu ppo rt [hi s] cla ims ab outwh at 7 he all ege dlydi d i n [ Chi na] an d H ongKo ng andinth e U nit ed 8 Sta tes .” Sp eci fic all y, the IJci tedLi u’s fa ilu re to submit 9 let ter s f romhi s w ife ab outth e a lle gedvi sit s f romth e 10 sec uri ty off ici als ; f romfe llo w memb ers ab outth e p ro11 dem ocr acymo vementinHo ng Kon g; andfr om pol ice an d 12 hos pit al off ici als inCa lif orn ia abo ut the ca r a cci den t t hat 13 all ege dlypr eve nte d h im fro m r etu rni ng to Chi na in Jan uar y 14 200 3. Th e I J d id notre mar k o n t hes e o mis sio ns dur ingth e 15 hea rin g, nordi d h e a sk Liutoexpla in the m. 16 Liudi d n ot mov e t o r eop en the pr oce edi ngs inor derto 17 submitth ose do cument s. Onap pea l t o t he BIA , L iu didno t 18 exp lai n why the do cument s w ere un ava ila ble tohi m. 19 Wit hou t a ffi rmi ng or rej ect ingth e I J’s adver se 20 cre dib ili ty det erm ina tio n, the BI A a ffi rme d t he IJ’ s 21 “co ncl usi on tha t e venas sum ingcr edi bil ity , [ Liu ] h as fai led 22 to mee t h is bur denofes tab lis hin g t hatitis mo re lik ely5 1 tha n n ot tha t h e w ill be pe rse cut ed on acc oun t o f a 2 pro tec tedgr oun d” if he is ret urn ed to Chi na. T he BIA 3 spe cif ica llyfo undit“r eas ona ble ” f or the IJtoci te a l ack 4 of “re lia ble ev ide nce ,” oth er tha n L iu’ s o wn hea rsa y 5 tes tim ony , “ in the fo rm of an aff ida vitorle tte r f romhi s 6 wif e w ithwh om [Li u] has ma int ain ed con tac t, to cor rob ora te 7 [hi s] acc oun t r ega rdi ng wha t h ad occ urr ed in [Ch ina ] i n h is 8 abs enc e,” as we ll as “an y l ett ers fr om the de moc rat ic 9 ass oci ati on in Hon g K ongfo r whic h h e c lai medtoha ve ser ved 10 as the ac tin g s ecr eta ry of one ofit s d ivi sio ns. ” The BI A 11 con clu dedth at the IJre aso nab ly rel iedonLi u’s la ck of 12 cor rob ora tio n b eca use th ere wa s “ no ind ica tio n o n t he rec ord 13 tha t s uchev ide nce wa s u nav ail abl e, and[L iu] ha s n ot 14 pro vid ed anyexpla nat iononap pea l f or his fa ilu re to 15 pre sen t s uchco rro bor ati ng evi den ce. ” 16 17 DIS CUS SION 18 Liu ’s wit hho ldi ng of rem ova l c lai m i s t he one cl aimat 19 iss ue on app eal . Li u d oes no t c hal len ge the pr ete rmi tta nce 20 of his as ylum a ppl ica tio n a s u nti mel y. As toLi u’s 21 app lic ati on forCA T r eli ef (de nie d o n t he gro undth at Liu 22 fai ledtosh ow tha t i t w as mor e l ike ly tha n n ot he wou ld be6 1 tor tur ed if rem ove d t o C hin a), Li u’s br iefonap pea l m ake s 2 no ref ere nce tohi s CAT app lic ati on (ortoto rtu re 3 gen era lly ), so tha t a rgumen t i s d eemed for fei ted . Yue qin g 4 Zha ng v. Gon zal es, 42 6 F .3d54 0, 545 n. 7 ( 2d Cir . 2 005 ) 5 (st ati ng tha t wher e p eti tio ner“d evo tes on ly a s ing le 6 con clu sor y s ent enc e t o t he arg ume nt” insu ppo rt of a c lai m 7 forre lie f, “we . . . de em his pe tit ionfo r r evi ew of the 8 IJ’ s f ind ingas to[t hat ] c lai m a ban don ed anddono t 9 con sid er it” ). 10 Whe n, as her e, the BI A a ffi rms th e I J’s de cis ioninal l 11 res pec ts buton e, the Co urtre vie ws the IJ ’s dec isi on “as 12 mod ifi ed by the BI A’s de cis ion --t hatis , m inu s t he sin gle 13 arg ume nt forde nyi ng rel iefth at was re jec tedbyth e B IA. ” 14 Xue Ho ng Yan g v . U .S. De p’tofJu sti ce, 42 6 F .3d52 0, 522 15 (2dCi r. 200 5). W e r evi ew the BI A’s fa ctu al fin din gs und er 16 the su bst ant ial ev ide nce st and ard , i ncl udi ng tho se 17 “un der lyi ng the immig rat ionco urt ’s det erm ina tio n t hatan 18 ali en has fa ile d t o s ati sfyhi s b urd en of pro of, ” Wu B iao 19 Che n v . I NS, 34 4 F .3d27 2, 275 (2 d C ir. 20 03) (p er cur iam ), 20 tre ati ng the fi ndi ngs as “c onc lus ive un les s a ny rea son abl e 21 adj udi cat or wou ld be compel ledtoco ncl ude toth e c ont rar y,” 22 8 U .S. C. § 1 252 (b) (4) (B) .7 1 The BI A’s co ncl usi on- -th at Liufa ile d t o e sta bli sh tha t 2 it is “mo re lik elyth an not ” t hathe wo uldbe pe rse cut ed on 3 acc oun t o f h is inv olv eme nt in the Ju ne Fou rthMo vement --i s 4 sup por tedbysu bst ant ial ev ide nce . Liute sti fie d t hataf ter 5 he was re lea sedfr om det ent ionin19 91, he le ft andre tur ned 6 to Chi na numero us times, an d t hatth e C hin ese go ver nme nt 7 iss ueda pas spo rt to himin20 02 bec aus e h e h ad bee n o ut of 8 det ent ion“f or man y, man y y ear s.” T hus an y p res ump tio n o f 9 fut ure pe rse cut ionth at mig ht be bas ed on Liu ’s det ent ionin 10 con nec tio n w ithth e June Fo urt h M ove men t w oul d b e r ebu tte d 11 by a f und ame nta l c han ge in cir cum sta nce s. Se e 8 C. F.R . 12 § 2 08. 16( b)( 1)( i)( A) (pr esumpt ionofa fut ure ri sk of 13 per sec uti on maybe re but tedbysh owi ng a f und ame nta l c han ge 14 in cir cum sta nce ). 15 Liu ’s cla im forwi thh old ingofre mov al the ref ore re sts 16 sol elyonhi s t est imo ny tha t g ove rnmentau tho rit ies vi sit ed 17 his ho me in Chi na (an d l ate r r ans ack ed it) byre aso n o f h is 18 pro -de moc rac y a cti vit ies . It fol low s t hatth e o nlyqu est ion 19 on app eal is wh eth er it was er rorfo r t he IJ to den y L iu’ s 20 cla im on the gr oun d t hatLi u f ail ed to mee t h is bur denof 21 est abl ish ingel igi bil ityfo r w ith hol din g o f r emo val be cau se 22 of his fa ilu re to bol ste r h is inc ons ist entte sti mon y w ith8 1 cor rob ora tin g e vid enc e r ega rdi ng the ri sk of per sec uti on on 2 his re tur n t o C hin a. 3 A p rec ede nti al opi nio n o f t he BIAde scr ibe s a n 4 app lic ant ’s nee d t o p rof ferco rro bor ati ng evi den ce: 5 [W] her e i t i s r eas ona ble toexpec t 6 cor rob ora tin g e vid enc e f or cer tai n a lle ged 7 fac ts per tai nin g t o t he spe cif ics ofan 8 app lic ant ’s cla im, su ch evi den ce sho uldbe 9 pro vid ed. T hatis , a n a syl um app lic antsh oul d 10 pro vid e d ocumen tar y s upp ortfo r m ate ria l f act s 11 whi ch are ce ntr al to his orhe r c lai m a nd 12 eas ilysu bje ct to ver ifi cat ion , s uchas 13 evi den ce of his orhe r p lac e o f b irt h, med ia 14 acc oun ts of lar ge dem ons tra tio ns, ev ide nce of 15 a p ubl icl y h eldof fic e, or doc ume nta tio n o f 16 med ica l t rea tme nt. I f t he app lic antdo es not 17 pro vid e s uchin format ion , a n e xpl ana tio n 18 sho uldbe gi venas towh y s uchin format ionwa s 19 notpr ese nte d. 20 21 In re S-M -J- , 2 1 I . & N. De c. 722 , 7 25 (B. I.A . 1 997 ). Th is 22 sta nda rd rec ogn ize s t hatcr edi ble te sti mon y a lon e m ay be 23 eno ughtoca rryth e a lie n’s bu rde n o f p roo f, 8 C .F. R. 24 § 2 08. 13( a), bu t “ emp owe rs the [I J] to requir e t hatcr edi ble 25 tes tim onyofth e [ ali en] be co rro bor ate d i n c irc ums tan ces in 26 whi ch one wo uldexpec t c orr obo rat ingev ide nce tobe 27 ava ila ble an d p res ent ed in the immig rat ionhe ari ng. ” 28 Oye kun le v. Gon zal es, 49 8 F .3d71 5, 717 (7 th Cir . 2 007 ); see 29 als o D ial lo v. INS , 2 32 F.3 d 2 79, 28 5 ( 2d Cir . 2 000 ) ( “Wh ile 30 con sis ten t, det ail ed, an d c red ibl e t est imo ny maybeTh e REALIDAc t’s cr edi bil ityst and ardap pli es to 2 app lic ati ons fi ledonoraf terMa y 1 1, 200 5; Liu ’s app lic ati on was fi ledonJu ly 15, 20 04. S ee REAL I D § 1 01( h)( 2), Pu b. L. No. 10 9-1 3, 119 St at. 23 1, 305 (2 005 ). Forth is rea son , t he BIApr ope rlyre vie wedth e I J’s det erm ina tio n t hatLi u n eed ed add iti ona l c orr obo rat ionun der the pr e-REALIDst and ard . 9 1 suf fic ien t t o c arr y t he ali en’ s b urd en, ev ide nce 2 cor rob ora tin g h is sto ry, oranexpla nat ionfo r i ts abs enc e, 3 maybe re qui redwh ere itwo uldre aso nab ly be exp ect ed. ”). 4 We hav e a ppr ove d t his st and ardas “c ons ist entwi th INS 5 reg ula tio ns, in ter nat ion al leg al sta nda rds , a nd our 6 pre ced entan d t her efo re . . . ent itl ed to def ere nce .” 7 Dia llo , 2 32 F.3 d a t 2 86. 8 The RE AL ID Actof20 05, Pu b. L. No. 10 9-1 3, 119 St at. 9 231 , 3 03 (20 05) , a lte redth is lan dsc ape so mewhat . In a 10 pro vis ionth at doe s n ot app ly to Liube cau se of the 11 eff ect ive da te of the Ac t, th e REALIDAc t e mph asi zes th e 2 12 imp ort anc e o f c orr obo rat ingev ide nce : 13 The te sti mon y o f t he app lic antma y b e 14 suf fic ien t t o s ust ainth e a ppl ica nt’ s b urd en 15 wit hou t c orr obo rat ion , b ut onl y i f t he 16 app lic antsa tis fie s t he tri er of fac t t hatth e 17 app lic ant ’s tes tim onyis cr edi ble , i s 18 per sua siv e, andre fer s t o s pec ifi c f act s 19 suf fic ien t t o d emo nst rat e t hatth e a ppl ica nt 20 is a r efu gee . In det erm ini ng whe the r t he 21 app lic antha s met the ap pli can t’s bu rde n, the 22 tri er of fac t m ay wei gh the cr edi ble te sti mon y 23 alo ng wit h o the r e vid enc e o f r eco rd. Wher eTh is pro vis ionofth e REALIDAc t a ppl ies to 3 pet iti ons fo r b othas ylum a nd wit hho ldi ng of rem ova l. Se e 8 U.S .C. § 123 1(b )(3 )(C ) ( “Inde termin ingwh eth er an ali en has dem ons tra tedth at the al ien ’s lif e o r f ree domwo uldbe thr eat ene d f or a r eas on des cri bedinsu bpa rag rap h ( A), th e tri er of fac t s hal l d ete rmi ne whe the r t he ali en has sus tai nedth e a lie n’s bu rde n o f p roo f, andsh all ma ke cre dib ili ty det erm ina tio ns, inth e m ann er des cri bedin cla use s ( ii) an d ( iii ) o f s ect ion11 58( b)( 1)( B) of thi s tit le. ”). Ju dge Pa rke r b eli eve s t his pr ovi sio n c ont ain s a 4 not ice re qui rementap pli cab le to cas es tha t p ost -da te the REAL I D A ct of 200 5. 10 1 the tr ieroffa ct det erm ine s t hatth e 2 app lic antsh oul d p rov ide ev ide nce th at 3 cor rob ora tes ot her wis e c red ibl e t est imo ny, 4 suc h e vid enc e mustbe pr ovi dedun les s t he 5 app lic antdo es notha ve the ev ide nce an d 6 can notre aso nab ly obt ainth e e vid enc e. 7 8 See RE AL ID § 1 01( a)( 3)( B)( ii) (c odi fie d a t 8 U. S.C . 9 § 1 158 (b) (1) (B) (ii )). T he REAL I D A ct thu s c odi fie s t he 3 10 rul e t hatanIJ , w eig hin g t he evi den ce to det erm ine ifth e 11 ali en has me t h is bur den , m ay rel y o n t he abs enc e o f 12 cor rob ora tin g e vid enc e a ddu cedbyanot her wis e c red ibl e 13 app lic antun les s s uchev ide nce ca nno t b e r eas ona bly 14 obt ain ed. S inc e t he quo tedpa ssa ge doe s n ot gov ernth is 15 app eal , t his op ini on doe s n ot con str ue it. I t i s t o b e 4 16 exp ect ed tha t t he BIAwi ll und ert ake inth e f irs t i nst anc e 17 to sayho w t his pa ssa ge bea rs upo n t he evi den tia ry and 18 pro cedura l r ule s t hatgo ver n i n t he wak e o f t he REAL I D A ct.Th e REALIDAc t i mpa cts ou r r evi ew of “al l c ase s i n 5 whi ch the fi nal admin ist rat ive re mov al ord er is or was iss uedbe for e, on, oraf ter ” M ay 11, 20 05. REALIDAc t § 101 (h) (3) , P ub. L. No . 1 09- 13, 11 9 S tat . 2 31, 30 5-3 06 (20 05) . 11 1 Sig nif ica ntl y, ano the r p rov isi on of the RE AL ID Act , 2 whi ch doe s a ppl y i n t his ca se, na rro ws thi s C our t’s re vie w 5 3 of an IJ’ s d ete rmi nat ionth at add iti ona l c orr obo rat ionwa s 4 ava ila ble : 5 No cou rt sha ll rev ers e ade termin ati on mad e b y a 6 tri er of fac t w ithre spe ct to the av ail abi lit y o f 7 cor rob ora tin g e vid enc e . . . u nle ss the co urt 8 fin ds . . . tha t are aso nab le tri er of fac t i s 9 compel ledtoco ncl ude th at suc h c orr obo rat ing 10 evi den ce is una vai lab le. 11 12 REAL I D A ct § 1 01( e) (co dif iedat8 U.S .C. § 125 2(b )(4 )). 13 In oth er wor ds, we re vie w w ithsu bst ant ial de fer enc e a n I J’s 14 det erm ina tio n t hatco rro bor ati ng evi den ce was re aso nab ly 15 ava ila ble toth e a ppl ica nt. S ee, e. g., Ky aw Zwa r T un v. 16 INS , 4 45 F.3 d 5 54, 56 8 ( 2d Cir . 2 006 ) ( “[T ]he IJid ent ifi ed 17 the mi ssi ng inf orm ati on; si nce th e r eco rd mak es cle ar tha t 18 the in format ionwa s r eas ona blyav ail abl e t o [ pet iti one r] and 19 tha t [ pet iti one r] fai ledtopr ovi de con vin cin g e vid enc e t hat 20 the in format ionwa s u nav ail abl e, thi s s uff ice d t o s upp ort 21 the IJ ’s fin din g.” ). 22 A n umb er of cas es in thi s C irc uit , applying a version“An [alien’s] failure to corroborate his testimony may 6 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question.” Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, credibility and corroboration are distinct principles in this Circuit’s immigration jurisprudence. The critical distinction is this: while a failure to corroborate can suffice, without more, to support a finding that an alien has not met his burden of proof, a failure to corroborate cannot, without more, support an adverse credibility determination. Duan Chen v. Gonzales, 201 Fed.Appx. 107, 109 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Diallo, 232 F.3d at 287). 12 1 of the statute that predated the REAL ID Act of 2005, ha ve 2 dis cus sedth e a nal ysi s a n I J mustpe rfo rm whe n r ely ingup on 3 an ali en’ s f ail ure topr ovi de cor rob ora tin g e vid enc e i n 4 con clu din g t hatth e a lie n f ail ed to mee t h is bur denof 5 pro of. S ee Mei Ch ai Ye v. U.S . D ep’ t o f Just ice , 4 89 F.3 d 6 517 , 5 27 n.9 (2 d C ir. 20 07) (c oll ect ingca ses ). An I J 6 7 sho uld“p oin t[] tosp eci ficpi ece s o f m iss ing , r ele van t 8 doc ume nta tio n” and“s how [] tha t t his do cument ati on was 9 rea son abl y a vai lab le, ” J in Shu i Q iu v. Ash cro ft, 32 9 F .3d 10 140 , 1 53 (2dCi r. 200 3); anal ienmu st hav e a n o ppo rtu nit y 11 to exp lai n t he omi ssi on, Ca o H e L in v. U.S . D ep’ t o f 12 Jus tic e, 428 F. 3d 391 , 3 95 (2dCi r. 200 5); an d t he IJ mus t 13 ass ess an y e xpl ana tio n t hatis gi ven , D ial lo, 23 2 F .3dat 14 290 . Butth oug h w e r equ ire anIJtosp eci fy the po int s o f 15 tes tim onyth at requir e c orr obo rat ion , w e h ave no t h eldth atItis no t a t a ll cle ar tha t w e c oul d r equ ire anIJto 7 del ay or adj our n p roc eed ing s t o a llo w s ubm iss ionof cor rob ora tin g m ate ria l t hatco uldha ve bee n c oll ect ed in adv anc e o f t he hea rin g; aft er all , t his Court’s “inherent power generally extends only to [the] management of its own affairs: to impose decorum, to maintain order, to control admission to the bar, to discipline attorneys, to punish for contempt, and to vacate its own judgments if tainted by fraud.” Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 267 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis added). 13 1 thi s mustbe do ne pri or to the IJ ’s dis pos iti on of the 2 ali en’ s c lai m. A fte r a ll, a fac tfi nde r m ay notbe ab le to 7 3 dec ide su ffi cie ncyofev ide nce un til al l t he evi den ce has 4 bee n p res ent ed; in suf fic ien cy can notbe de termin ed whi le 5 the re is evi den ce to be int roduce d. Li kew ise , i t i s n ot 6 eas y t o k nowwh en an exp lan ati on wou ld be requir ed fora 7 lac k o f c orr obo rat ion , b eca use anIJma y n ot det erm ine th at 8 cor rob ora tio n i s n ece ssa ry unt il all th e e vid enc e i s i n, and 9 the IJha s h ad an opp ort uni ty to wei gh the ev ide nce an d 10 pre par e a n o pin ion --s tep s t hatma y n ot occ ur unt il day s 11 aft er the he ari ng. A cco rdi ngl y, whi le we hav e s ome times 12 rem and ed a c ase ifth e I J f ail ed to exp lai n h is rel ian ce on 13 a l ackofco rro bor ati ng evi den ce, th e a lie n b ear s t he 14 ult ima te bur denofin tro duc ingsu ch evi den ce wit hou t 15 pro mpt ingfr om the IJ . 16 App lyi ng the fo reg oin g p rin cip les inth is cas e c omp elsSp eci fic all y, the IJno tedth e a bse nce ofev ide nce 8 suc h a s a n a ffi dav it fro m h is wif e i n C hin a; a l ett er fro m the de moc rat ic ass oci ati on in Hon g K ong ; a nd pol ice an d/o r hos pit al rec ord s c onc ern ingLi u’s Ca lif orn ia aut o a cci den t in Jan uar y o f 2 003 . Und er the RE AL ID Act , w e d efe r t o t he IJ’ s d ete rmi nat ionth at suc h e vid enc e w as rea son abl y ava ila ble . 8 U .S. C. § 1 252 (b) (4) . 14 1 the co ncl usi on tha t t he IJ pro per ly den iedLi u’s wi thh old ing 2 of rem ova l c lai m f or fai lur e t o p rov ide co rro bor ati ng 3 evi den ce. L iu tes tif iedatso me len gthre gar din g h is 4 inv olv eme nt in the Ch ine se dem ocr ati c m ove men t; his pa st 5 per sec uti on bas ed on tha t i nvo lve men t; andhi s w ife ’s 6 all ege d r epo rt tha t C hin ese po lic e h ad come s ear chi ng for 7 himju st pri or to his pl ann ed ret urntoCh ina . YetLi u 8 submit tednoev ide nce toco rro bor ate hi s c ent ral cl aim s 9 reg ard ingth e s upp ose d f utu re ris k o f p ers ecu tio n. Th e I J’s 10 dec isi on spe cif ica llyid ent ifi ed the types ofdo cument s t hat 11 mig ht hav e a dequat elysu ppl eme nte d L iu’ s t est imo ny, as 12 requir ed by thi s C irc uit ’s pri or cas es. S ee Ji n S hui Qi u, 13 329 F. 3d at 153 . B ut Liuha s g ive n n o e xpl ana tio n f or the 8 14 fai lur e t o p rov ide su ch cor rob ora tin g e vid enc e, eit herina 15 mot iontore ope n o r o n a ppe al to the BI A. Th us Liuha s 16 nei the r p rov ide d t he sor t o f c orr obo rat ingev ide nce 17 ide nti fie d b y t he IJ norha s h e e xpl ain ed the ab sen ce of 18 suc h c orr obo rat ingev ide nce . The IJdi d n ot errinde nyi ng15 1 Liu ’s app lic ati on forwi thh old ingofre mov al on tha t g rou nd, 2 andth e B IA pro per ly aff irmed. 3 4 CONCLUSION 5 Forth e f ore goi ng rea son s, the pe tit ionfo r r evi ew is 6 den ied .