12-3009
Tong v. Lynch
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A089 198 140
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 14th day of March, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT:
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
HUA TONG,
Petitioner,
12-3009
v. NAC
LORETTA E. LYNCH1, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Mouren Wu, New York, New York.
1
Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted as the
respondent in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery,
Assistant Director; Kerry A. Monaco,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner, Hua Tong, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 23, 2012,
decision of the BIA affirming the April 29, 2011, decision
of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan A. Vomacka, which
pretermitted her application for asylum, alternatively
denied asylum, and denied withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hua
Tong, No. A089 198 140 (B.I.A. July 23, 2012), aff’g No.
A089 198 140 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 29, 2011). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
decision of the IJ as modified and supplemented by the BIA.
See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005);
2
Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522
(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are
well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). As a
preliminary matter, we assume, as the BIA did, Tong’s
credibility, and we do not consider the agency’s
pretermission of her asylum application as untimely because
the agency’s alternative finding that she failed to provide
reasonably available corroborating evidence was dispositive
of her asylum claim, as well as withholding of removal. See
Yan Chen, 417 F.3d at 271. Tong does not challenge the
agency’s denial of CAT relief.
Although “credible testimony alone may be enough to
carry the alien’s burden of proof,” an IJ may “require that
credible testimony of the alien be corroborated in
circumstances in which one would expect corroborating
evidence to be available and presented in the immigration
hearing.” Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196-97 (2d
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (providing
that testimony alone may be sufficient if it is credible,
persuasive, and sufficiently specific). Here, the agency
reasonably found corroborating evidence necessary as Tong
3
made only two vague statements to support her claim that
Chinese authorities had threatened to arrest her in 1999 and
again in 2009. See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97.
The agency did not err in finding such evidence
reasonably available as Tong submitted letters from her
mother, uncle, and friends; however, those letters did not
corroborate Tong’s statements. See id. The IJ also
reasonably expected a letter from Tong’s father because,
according to Tong’s application, he was the only individual
with personal knowledge regarding Chinese authorities’
effort to arrest her in 1999. Accordingly, the agency did
not err in finding that Tong failed to establish her
eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal based on
her lack of corroboration. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97; see
also Yan Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 254 (2d Cir.
2011).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4