Opinion ID: 2708798
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Credibility of Tian’s Claim of Persecution

Text: In order to establish eligibility for withholding of remov‐ al, the alien bears the burden of demonstrating that his “life or freedom would be threatened … because of [his] race, re‐ ligion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” in the country to which he will be re‐ moved. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Firmansjah v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 598, 605 (7th Cir. 2005) (describing the alien’s burden to establish a “clear probability” of persecution, or that it is “more likely than not” that he will be subject to persecution if returned to his native country). Persecution is defined to include “detention, arrest, interrogation, prosecution, im‐ prisonment, illegal searches, confiscation of property, sur‐ veillance, beatings, torture, behavior that threatens the same, and non‐life‐threatening behavior such as torture and eco‐ nomic deprivation if the resulting conditions are sufficiently severe.” Yi Xian Chen v. Holder, 705 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Tian alleges political persecution based on his involvement in supplying food and water to student demonstrators in 1989 in Beijing. His testimony alone may suffice to prove that he is a refugee if the immigration judge finds it credible, but “if the [immigration judge] finds the testimony incredible, cor‐ roborating evidence is required.” Rama v. Holder, 607 F.3d 461, 465 (7th Cir. 2010). 10 No. 13‐2130 We hold that Tian fails to meet the burden of establishing his eligibility for withholding of removal: he does not pre‐ sent us with a plausible account of his past persecution or feared future persecution in China, and he has failed to pre‐ sent corroborating evidence to overcome the implausibility of his testimony.
First, we address the government’s argument that Tian waived review of the Board’s determination finding implau‐ sible his claim that he was detained and beaten in China for participating in the 1989 demonstration. The government argues that Tian summarily claims that he truthfully testified about his past persecution, but does not otherwise contest the Board’s finding of implausibility. We require “an argu‐ ment consisting of more than a generalized assertion of er‐ ror” to hold that an issue has not been waived in the brief‐ ing. Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001)). Tian does not meet this burden in asserting the plausibil‐ ity of his past persecution in China, as he articulates no co‐ gent argument to challenge the Board’s finding of implausi‐ bility. “The failure to adequately develop and support [this argument] results in waiver.” Long‐Gang Lin v. Holder, 630 F.3d 536, 543 (7th Cir. 2010). But even if he had not waived this challenge, we would agree with the agency’s determina‐ tion on the merits. The immigration judge and the Board reasonably deter‐ mined that Tian’s claim of persecution was implausible in view of the totality of his claim. We review the immigration No. 13‐2130 11 judge and the Board under the deferential substantial evi‐ dence standard, meaning that we may only reverse their fac‐ tual findings if the facts compel an opposite conclusion. Ba‐ logun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 507 (7th Cir. 2004). The record shows that Tian remained in China for more than ten years after his alleged persecution, and continued working at the same government‐owned restaurant where he had worked before the demonstration without further persecution from Chinese authorities. During his time there, he was eventually promoted to head chef. Furthermore, the government even permitted him to leave China to participate in a culinary ex‐ change program. Upon arriving in the United States, Tian did not apply for asylum for seven years, and it appears the application was inspired by his being placed in removal pro‐ ceedings in the United States. These facts, combined with the absence of specific details about his mistreatment in the past, reasonably lead to the conclusion that Tian was not fleeing persecution in China when he arrived in the United States in 2001. Nor does Tian present us with any information to sus‐ pect there will be persecution in Tian’s future, should he re‐ turn to China. The evidence certainly does not compel the conclusion that Tian will be persecuted should he return there.
Tian is ineligible for withholding of removal because substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that he did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence to overcome his incredible testimony, despite the availability of such evidence. As Tian is subject to the REAL ID Act, an immigration judge may require corroborating evidence, which must be presented unless it “cannot [be] reasonably 12 No. 13‐2130 obtain[ed].” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(C). “Un‐ less [Tian] can show that corroborating evidence was rea‐ sonably unavailable, [his] failure to produce it was fatal to [his] claims.” Raghunathan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 371, 379 (7th Cir. 2010). We review the Board’s determination that corrob‐ orating evidence was available under the substantial evi‐ dence standard, meaning that we cannot reverse a determi‐ nation made by the Board unless “a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.” Id. (quoting Pub. L. No. 109‐13, § 101, 119 Stat. 231, 304 (2005)). Tian submitted no corroborating evidence whatsoever, despite having several sources from which he could have obtained such information. He failed to submit evidence from his family, who knew about his detention and with whom he was in touch; fellow demonstrators from the 1989 demonstration, including Zhao Xuejin, apparently now liv‐ ing in England; or the hotel where he worked until 2001, when he left China. Tian’s failure to obtain corroborating ev‐ idence and failure to offer legitimate reasons why this evi‐ dence was not available are fatal to his claims. Because Tian does not present a credible account of his past or feared future persecution in China, and because he fails to submit corroborating evidence to overcome his in‐ credible testimony, we deny his petition for review with re‐ gard to his withholding of removal claim.