Opinion ID: 3110
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of Corroborative Evidence

Text: 75 Zhang submits that the IJ and BIA erroneously denied him asylum based on his failure to produce certain corroborative documents about his wife and family without adequately assessing whether the materials were reasonably available to him. See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d at 153 (observing that to deny asylum for want of sufficient corroboration, the adjudicator must (a) identify the particular pieces of missing, relevant documentation, and (b) show that the documentation at issue was reasonably available to the petitioner); see also Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d at 285 (holding that an asylum applicant may be required to produce evidence corroborating his story, or an explanation for its absence, ... where it would reasonably be expected). 76 Although the IJ made no specific finding as to availability, the record hardly suggests that this issue presented any real concerns. Zhang testified that in the weeks before his July 1, 1998 hearing, he had requested and received from his wife in China the birth, marriage, household registration, sterilization, and fine certificates that were offered in evidence to support his persecution claim. Thus, Zhang's failure to produce similar documents, which the IJ considered more probative, could reasonably be deemed more a product of Zhang's oversight or neglect than of the documents' unavailability. Such a conclusion would certainly be warranted with respect to the most significant missing document identified by the IJ: an affidavit or statement from Zhang's wife detailing her forcible sterilization. In response to an IJ inquiry about why he had not asked his wife to send such a document, Zhang did not assert unavailability. Rather, he replied, Oh, the time was rather urgent, and I forgot to mention that. Hearing Tr. at 39. In claiming that he was pressed for time, Zhang ignored the fact that he had waited five years to seek reopening of his asylum application. 77 Even if Zhang's ability to secure the identified corroborative documents were in doubt, however, he would not be entitled to the relief sought in this petition. The requirement for corroborative documents'identification and availability articulated in Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft (as derived from Diallo v. INS ) pertains when the IJ or BIA cites inadequate corroboration as a basis for denying asylum to an applicant who is otherwise credible. See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d at 153 (noting that Diallo recognized IJ authority to deny asylum in some cases where the applicant has failed to provide certain corroborative documents, even though the applicant testified credibly to facts that, if true, would qualify her for refugee status). That is not this case. If Zhang's failure to produce the identified corroboration were excused, what would remain would be (1) the IJ's finding that Zhang's inconsistent testimony ... seriously undermines the applicant's truthfulness and credibility before the Court, IJ Decision at 7-8, and (2) the BIA's finding that important discrepancies in the evidence are indicative of an overall lack of veracity on the part of the applicant, BIA Decision at 1. Such adverse credibility findings, by themselves, constitute substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Zhang failed to carry his burden of proof on his persecution claim. 11