Opinion ID: 3168298
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Credibility and Corroboration

Text: An applicant bears the burden of proving that he is a “refugee” and eligible for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). The testimony of the applicant “may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). In determining whether the applicant has met his bur‐ den, the IJ “may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). An IJ’s credibility determination considers the “totality of circum‐ stances, and all relevant factors” and may be based on a myriad of factors, including the inherent plausibility and in‐ No. 15‐1831 9 ternal consistency of the applicant’s statements. Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Where the IJ determines that the appli‐ cant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, “such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reason‐ ably obtain the evidence.” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Chen challenges the IJ’s findings with regard to his testi‐ mony, specifically arguing that the IJ erred in finding that Chen did not provide, or adequately explain the absence of, reasonably available evidence to corroborate his testimony.3 First, Chen argues that he could not reasonably provide corroboration for his testimony from the other protestors be‐ cause of his rapid flight from China after his detention and his wife’s relocation from their home. Chen’s argument is similar to those rejected by this court in Weiping Chen v. Holder, 744 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2014).4 In Weiping Chen, the court reviewed an IJ finding that required 3 Chen does not dispute the IJ’s credibility ruling, which determined that his testimony required corroboration. Therefore, this argument is waived. See Long‐Gang Lin v. Holder, 630 F.3d 536, 543 (7th Cir. 2010). (“[Petitioner] has not made any cogent argument to challenge these rea‐ sons for the adverse credibility finding. Thus, he has waived any chal‐ lenge to them.”) 4 Although the burdens of proof differ between asylum and withholding of removal, the credibility and corroboration analysis is the same in ex‐ amining the underlying claim of potential persecution on account of a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C) (referring to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)); see I.N.S. v. Cardoza‐Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 423–24 (1987). Therefore, Weiping Chen’s corroboration analysis, which pertains specifi‐ cally to a claim of withholding of removal, is relevant to the present cor‐ roboration analysis, which relates to Chen’s claims of asylum and with‐ holding of removal. 10 No. 15‐1831 corroborating evidence for a Chinese alien who had provid‐ ed inconsistent testimony regarding a property dispute with the government, participation in a protest, and detainment and abuse by the police. The Weiping Chen court upheld the IJ’s finding, noting that the lack of required corroborating evidence—specifically from his wife, with whom he had contacted two months before his hearing, and the other mer‐ chant‐protestor, with whom he claimed to have lost con‐ tact—“dooms” the applicant’s arguments. Id. at 533. In the instant case, Chen has likewise maintained contact with his wife who allegedly lives at their home. In fact, Chen’s inconsistent testimony regarding his wife’s location— he initially stated that she had left home to escape police harassment but then admitted that she currently lived at home—was a reason the IJ required corroboration. At his fi‐ nal hearing, Chen submitted a letter from his wife, which provided limited corroboration to his story in that it indicat‐ ed that he protested, that he was arrested, and that she paid a fine to obtain his release. But neither his wifeʹs nor his motherʹs letter mentioned that he was beaten by the police, that he sustained injuries, or that he fled China because of the ongoing police surveillance. Moreover, because Chen was able to contact his wife who lives at home in their vil‐ lage and obtain a letter from her, it is reasonable to assume that he could have also contacted the other protestors who live in the same village as his wife and obtain evidence from them. Thus, Chen fails to adequately explain his lack of cor‐ roborating evidence. Second, Chen argues that it is reasonable that he did not provide any medical evidence corroborating the physical in‐ juries he sustained while in police custody. He asserts that No. 15‐1831 11 the medical records were unavailable because the original copies were lost during his flight from China and his wife’s relocation and new copies of the records are unobtainable due to deficient recordkeeping in rural China. Chen’s argument is without merit. We initially note that the IJ specifically highlighted Chen’s detention injuries as a critical part of his testimony requiring corroboration: “There is no medical evidence either from doctors in China or the United States corroborating his injury.” Although Chen ar‐ gues that his Chinese medical records are unavailable, he provides no support for this assertion, such as a statement from his wife or Chinese doctors. In other words, Chen “did not explain why he could not obtain the medical evidence or even assert that he had tried.” Singh v. Ashcroft, 93 F. Appʹx 929, 934 (7th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, even accepting Chen’s statement that his Chinese medical records are unavailable, the lack of corroborating medical evidence from American doctors is fatal to his claim. Chen does not provide, nor does he explain the absence of, corroborating medical evidence from this reasonably available source. Third, Chen attempts to rely on Dawoud v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2005), for the proposition: “To expect [asy‐ lum applicants] to stop and collect dossiers of paperwork before fleeing is both unrealistic and strikingly insensitive to the harrowing conditions they face.” Id. at 613. Chen’s reliance on Dawoud is misplaced because the cred‐ ibility determination in Dawoud is different from the finding in Chen’s case. Dawoud explicitly concerned the “rule permit‐ ting reliance solely on credible testimony,” which is meant for asylum applicants who “flee their home countries under circumstances of great urgency … literally running for their 12 No. 15‐1831 lives … [and] abandon[ing] their families, friends, jobs, and material possessions without a word of explanation.” Id. at 612–13. In contrast, here, the IJ explicitly found that sole reli‐ ance on Chen’s testimony was not appropriate and required corroboration. In addition, unlike those who “flee … circum‐ stances of great urgency,” Chen traveled to the United States on a valid visitor visa obtained two months after his deten‐ tion and protest. Id. In sum, the IJ’s credibility and corroboration findings were supported by “substantial evidence” and the record does not compel the conclusion that Chen could not have reasonably obtained corroborating evidence. Consequently, his failure to produce such evidence when required is fatal to his asylum claim.