Opinion ID: 173295
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Authentication Issue.

Text: The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s finding that Mr. Tao had failed to submit sufficient corroborating documentary evidence to meet his burden of proof to establish a persecution claim. As the BIA explained, Mr. Tao “had almost 2 years to prepare for his hearing, his immediate family still lives in China, and the Immigration Judge cited specific documents that [Mr. Tao] could have been expected to produce or to have authenticated.” Id. at 4. In his decision, the IJ relied on similar reasoning to support his finding that Mr. Tao had failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence to satisfy his burden of proof, as the IJ “note[d] that counsel for [Mr. Tao] appeared for several hearings and was aware that the documents had not been authenticated, that it was his burden to do so, and [counsel] has offered no explanation as to whether good faith efforts were in fact made to authenticate [Mr. Tao’s] documents.” Id. at 72. The IJ also made a more specific finding to the effect that Mr. Tao had failed to submit authenticated “documentary proof that his wife purportedly suffered a forced abortion, as required by the [immigration] regulations.” Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6). The regulation cited by the IJ was enacted in 2003, -14- and it is a duplicated version of 8 C.F.R. § 287.6. See 68 Fed. Reg. 9845 (Feb. 28, 2003). The specific reason for the duplication is not set forth in the Federal Register, however, and it appears that many courts refer only to § 287.6 when discussing authentication issues in immigration cases. See, e.g., Jiang v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2007) (noting that 8 C.F.R. § 287.6(b) “provides a detailed procedure for the authentication of foreign official records for use in immigration proceedings”); but see Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2009 WL 2700165, at  n.1 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 2009) (unpublished) (stating “that 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 applies to proceedings before an IJ, whereas 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6 applies to proceedings before the BIA”). To avoid confusion, because the original version of the regulation and the duplicated version are identical, we will likewise refer only to § 287.6. 2 2 Both regulations provide, in pertinent part, as follows: In any [immigration] proceeding under this chapter, an official record or entry therein [from a foreign country], when admissible for any purpose, shall be evidenced by an official publication thereof, or by a copy attested by an officer so authorized. . . . The attested copy, with the additional foreign certificates if any, must be certified by an officer in the Foreign Service of the United States, stationed in the foreign country where the record is kept. 8 C.F.R. §§ 287.6(b)(1)-(2), 1287.6(b)(1)-(2). Both regulations also contain separate procedural requirements for official records emanating from countries that are signatories to the “Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation for Foreign Public Document.” Id. at §§ 287.6(c), 1287.6(c). There is no indication in the administrative record that the latter provisions are applicable to (continued...) -15- We agree with the IJ and the BIA that Mr. Tao failed to submit sufficient corroborating documentary evidence to meet his burden of proof to establish a persecution claim. In order to explain our holding, however, we must: (1) clarify several matters that relate to the authentication issue; and (2) summarize the extensive proceedings that took place in the immigration court pertaining to the authentication issue which, inexplicably, neither Mr. Tao nor the government have discussed in the briefs they have submitted to this court. First, we note that Mr. Tao is not arguing in this appeal that the IJ and the BIA erred by failing to properly consider the documentary proof that he submitted to support his claim that he was imprisoned in China for practicing Falun Gong. 3 As a result, that aspect of Mr. Tao’s persecution claim depends solely on the credibility issue discussed above, and we do not need to discuss it in connection with the authentication issue. Second, contrary to the BIA’s statement in its decision, our review of the administrative record indicates that the IJ never “cited specific documents that [Mr. Tao] could have been expected to produce.” A.R. at 4. Instead, as set forth below, in the immigration court proceedings that took place before the merits 2 (...continued) this case, however, and we will therefore assume that China is not a signatory to the specified convention. 3 The documentary proof consisted of purported letters from Mr. Tao and his wife discussing Mr. Tao’s alleged imprisonment in February 2005 for practicing Falun Gong. See A.R. at 216, 221-22. -16- hearing, the IJ raised only an authentication issue, and he raised the authentication issue with regard to just one of the documents submitted by Mr. Tao. That document was the purported “abortion certificate” that Mr. Tao submitted to support his claim that his wife was forced to have an abortion in September 2000. Id. at 469 (Item No. 10), 514-15. Thus, there are no issues in this appeal concerning whether Mr. Tao failed to produce or authenticate any other documentary evidence. Third, we note that, after raising the authentication issue, the IJ initially assumed the responsibility for having the abortion certificate authenticated in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 287.6. Specifically, the administrative record shows the following: a. At a hearing held on March 22, 2006, the IJ told counsel for Mr. Tao that he personally would send the abortion certificate to the United States State Department “with a letter from [himself] asking them to authenticate [the abortion certificate].” A.R. at 98. Counsel for Mr. Tao then stated that “[w]e’ll appreciate that, Your Honor, because [Mr. Tao] himself cannot have the abortion certificate authenticated. The Chinese government won’t do it for us.” Id. at 99. The IJ then set a hearing for July 26, 2006, stating that the purpose of the hearing would be “[p]rimarily . . . to check on the status to see where we are with the documents at issue.” Id. at 101. b. The IJ subsequently sent a letter dated April 12, 2006, to the United States State Department. The letter stated as follows: Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 287.6 which requires authentication of official records, counsel for the respondent has requested the authentication of the enclosed document by the U.S. Embassy in the People’s Republic of China. We have narrowed the original list of documents for which authentication is being sought to one item: the purported abortion certificate issued to respondent’s wife. As the verification -17- of this document may be dispositive of this case, your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Id. at 442. c. At the hearing subsequently held on July 26, 2006, the IJ informed counsel for the parties that he had sent his April 12, 2006, letter to the State Department, but had not received a response to the letter. Id. at 106. The IJ stated that he would “give them a bit more time and . . . follow up with [an] email to State to see if they’re making headway on this or what they think the prospects are [they’re] going to be able to do something for us.” Id. The IJ then set another hearing for September 27, 2006. d. At the hearing on September 27, 2006, the IJ informed counsel for the parties that he still had not heard back from the State Department in response to his April 12, 2006, letter. Id. at 109-10. The IJ stated that he would “send an email this afternoon up to State and give this thing a little push.” Id. at 111. The IJ also set another hearing for December 26, 2006. e. The next hearing before the IJ was held on December 18, 2006. At that hearing, the IJ informed counsel for the parties that he still had not heard back from the State Department regarding the abortion certificate. Id. at 114. The IJ stated that it would be necessary to go ahead and set the matter for a merits hearing. Id. The IJ then scheduled a merits hearing before another IJ since he was retiring. Fourth, the merits hearing was conducted before the second IJ on May 14, 2007. At the conclusion of the hearing, the second IJ noted that “authentication of the abortion certificate” was still an “issue,” id. at 191, and he stated that “[t]hat’s really a respondent’s burden,” id. After counsel for the government pointed out that the first IJ “took it on himself to try to get” the abortion certificate authenticated, id. at 193, the second IJ responded: “I’m not going to do that because that’s not my job to do that,” id. Following a discussion of other -18- matters, the second IJ then concluded the merits hearing with the following statement: This case is continued until August 13 at 2:30, 2007. We’ll wait to see what the abortion certificate, the outcome of the authentication is. We’re going to allow counsel (indiscernible) telephonically that day. There’s no reason for her to return. Let’s let the respondent know we’re going to give him three more months to see whether or not the abortion certificate was authentic or not authentic. Id. at 199. The second IJ then had the following exchange with counsel for Mr. Tao and he also made a statement for the record about the authentication issue: