Court Opinion

ID: 9554881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 15:00:39.061094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:39:11.338211
License: Public Domain

21-6059
     Wei v. Garland
                                                                            BIA
                                                                       Conroy, IJ
                                                                    A206 803 042
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                 SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
 3   States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
 4   on the 10th day of August, two thousand twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7            RICHARD C. WESLEY,
 8            RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
 9            MYRNA PÉREZ,
10                 Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   GUI WEI,
14                    Petitioner,
15
16                    v.                                  21-6059
17                                                        NAC
18   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20            Respondent.
21   _____________________________________
22
23   FOR PETITIONER:                  Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York,
24                                    NY.
25
26   FOR RESPONDENT:                  Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
27                                    Attorney General; Anthony P.
28                                    Nicastro, Assistant Director;
29                                    Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney,
30                                    Office of Immigration Litigation,
 1                                   United States Department of
 2                                   Justice, Washington, DC.

 3       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 4   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

 5   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

 6   is DENIED.

 7       Petitioner Gui Wei, a native and citizen of the People’s

 8   Republic of China, seeks review of a January 19, 2021 decision

 9   of the BIA affirming a September 25, 2018 decision of an

10   Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,

11   withholding     of   removal,   and       relief   under    the   Convention

12   Against Torture (“CAT”).          In re Gui Wei, No. A 206 803 042

13   (B.I.A. Jan. 19, 2021), aff’g No. A 206 803 042 (Immig. Ct.

14   N.Y.C. Sept. 25, 2018).         We assume the parties’ familiarity

15   with the underlying facts and procedural history.

16       We   have    reviewed   the    IJ’s      decision      as   modified   and

17   supplemented by the BIA.        See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d

18   268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

19   426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).            We review factual findings

20   for substantial evidence and questions of law and application

21   of law to undisputed fact de novo.           See Yanqin Weng v. Holder,

22   562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

23       An asylum applicant has the burden to establish either
                                           2
 1   past    persecution      or    an    “objectively         reasonable”        fear    of

 2   future persecution.           Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169,

 3   178 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i);

 4   8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b).              “The testimony of the applicant may

 5   be   sufficient    to    sustain          the    applicant’s      burden      without

 6   corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier

 7   of   fact   that   the    applicant’s            testimony      is    credible,      is

 8   persuasive,     and     refers       to    specific       facts      sufficient      to

 9   demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.”                                8 U.S.C.

10   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).            “[T]he trier of fact may weigh the

11   credible    testimony      along      with       other    evidence      of    record.

12   Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should

13   provide     evidence      that       corroborates          otherwise         credible

14   testimony,      such     evidence         must     be    provided       unless      the

15   applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably

16   obtain    the   evidence.”           Id.        “No     court   shall    reverse      a

17   determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the

18   availability of corroborating evidence . . . unless the court

19   finds . . . that a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to

20   conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.”

21   8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

22          The agency reasonably found that Wei did not meet his

                                                3
 1   burden of proof because he failed to provide persuasive

 2   testimony    and    to   corroborate           his   claim      with    documentary

 3   evidence    of     his   detention       for     attending       an     underground

 4   Christian church or of his proselytizing over social media in

 5   the United States.          See Yan Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d

 6   246, 253–54 (2d Cir. 2011) (upholding denial for failure to

 7   meet burden based on lack of sufficiently persuasive or

 8   detailed     testimony       and     failure         to   provide        reasonably

 9   available corroboration).

10         The   IJ     did     not     err    in     finding        Wei’s    testimony

11   unpersuasive, given that it lacked detail about, among other

12   things, his attendance at an underground church gathering and

13   his   interactions       with    authorities          during      and    after   his

14   detention.           Nor     did         the     IJ       err     in     requiring

15   corroboration.       See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (allowing

16   IJ to require corroboration of even credible testimony if

17   evidence is available and reasonably obtainable); Wei Sun v.

18   Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 28 (2d Cir. 2018) (“[A]n applicant may

19   be generally credible, but his testimony may not be sufficient

20   to carry the burden of persuading the fact finder of the

21   accuracy of his claim of crucial facts if he fails to put

22   forth corroboration that should be readily available.”).                         Wei

                                              4
 1   provided no documents corroborating his detention by Chinese

 2   authorities and his efforts to convert others in the United

 3   States,      despite     testifying    that   he   had   such   evidence.

 4   Certified Admin. Record at 165–66.             Similarly, the letters

 5   from his family and friends did not corroborate his testimony

 6   that he spread the gospel in the United States or on Chinese

 7   social media.       Because Wei could have presented additional

 8   evidence and has not done so or established it is unavailable,

 9   the IJ did not err in concluding that he failed to meet his

10   burden of proof.         See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Wei Sun,

11   883   F.3d    at   31;    see   also   8 U.S.C.    § 1252(b)(4).      This

12   conclusion is dispositive of all forms of relief.               See Lecaj

13   v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010).                    We have

14   considered Wei’s remaining arguments and find them to be

15   without merit.

16         For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

17   DENIED.      All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

18   stays VACATED.

19                                          FOR THE COURT:
20                                          Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21                                          Clerk of Court
22

                                            5