Source: https://secondcircuit.lexroll.com/yang-zhao-v-mukasey-264-fed-appx-51-2nd-cir-2008/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:53:36+00:00

Document:
YANG ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-6589-ag.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is automatically substituted for farmer Attorney General John Ashcroft as a respondent in this case.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.
Yang Zhao, pro se, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
John C. Richter, United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, Eleanor Darden Thompson, Assistant United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent.
PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Yang Zhao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 30, 2004 order of the BIA affirming the July 15, 2003 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Morace, denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yang Zhao, No. A79 682 808 (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2004), aff’g No. A79 682 808 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 15, 2003). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
When the BIA summarily affirms the decision of the IJ without issuing an opinion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), this Court reviews the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination See, e.g., Twum v. INS, 411 F.3d 54, 58 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting section 1252(B)(4)(b); internal quotation marks omitted). However, this Court will vacate and remand fo new findings if the agency’s reasoning or its fact-finding process was sufficiently flawed. Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 406 (2d Cir. 2005).
Most of the IJ’s findings stemmed, at least in part, from his conclusion that there was no mention of Guanyin Famen or persecution of its practitioners in the International Religious Freedom Report. For instance, the IJ found that Zhao should have submitted additional corroborative evidence of her claims. However, it is not clear whether the IJ would have required additional corroborative evidence in this case, or how he would have weighed the absence of additional corroboration, had he realized that the background materials, in fact, did make reference to Guanyin Famen. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285-86 (2d Cir. 2000). It is also not clear that the IJ would have found that Zhao could safely relocate within China had he realized, based on the International Religious Freedom Report, that the Chinese government had outlawed Guanyin Famen See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir. 2006).
In light of the importance that the IJ placed on the failure of the background materials to mention Guanyin Famen, we cannot be sure that the IJ would have reached the same result absent this error of fact. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2006). The IJ’s decision is thus fatally flawed. We are unable adequately to review the IJ’s conclusion that Zhao failed to meet her burden of proof. See Tian-Yong Chen v. INS, 359 F.3d 121, 129-29 (2d Cir. 2004). Where the IJ has ignored or failed to consider material evidence, we cannot conclude that the IJ’s decision was based entirely on the record. See id. Such a flawed interpretation of the record requires remand so that the agency, may, in the first instance, determine the significance of the IJ’s error. See Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 93 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s order is VACATED, and the case is remanded to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this order. Our review having been completed, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.

References: v. 
 § 1003
 v. 
 § 1252
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.