15-3189
Hang v. Sessions
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A205 220 784
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
AMENDED 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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 17th day of May, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JIAN HANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-3189
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Wei Gu, Whitestone, N.Y.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; Melissa
27 Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation
28 Counsel; Lori B. Warlick, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States
31 Department of Justice, Washington,
32 D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Jian Hang, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a September 29, 2015,
7 decision of the BIA affirming a March 17, 2014, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Jian Hang, No. A205 220 784 (B.I.A. Sept. 29,
11 2015), aff’g No. A205 220 784 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 17,
12 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
13 facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Chuilu Liu v.
19 Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency did not
20 err in finding that Hang failed to satisfy his burden of proof
21 as to his claim that he was detained and beaten for protesting
22 the Chinese government’s demolition of his restaurant without
23 just compensation.
2
1 “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to
2 sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only
3 if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the
4 applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers
5 to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant
6 is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Chuilu,
7 575 F.3d at 196-97. In this case, the agency reasonably
8 required corroboration because Hang’s testimony was
9 inconsistent at times and lacked detail. See 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that
11 the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates
12 otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided
13 unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot
14 reasonably obtain the evidence.”); see also Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d
15 at 196-97.
16 The agency properly identified the missing evidence,
17 noting that Hang had not submitted receipts from his business,
18 a deed from the property, or letters from his wife, customers,
19 or suppliers to corroborate his claim that he owned a restaurant
20 for five years, that the restaurant was demolished, and that
21 he was detained and beaten for protesting the government’s
22 failure to adequately compensate him. Even crediting Hang’s
23 explanation that evidence of his business was destroyed in the
3
1 demolition, he failed to compellingly explain why he could not
2 obtain statements from his wife, customers, or suppliers. See
3 Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 198 (“[T]he alien bears the ultimate
4 burden of introducing such evidence without prompting from the
5 IJ.”).
6 Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Hang
7 failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating past persecution
8 or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Id. at 196-98.
9 That finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and CAT relief because all three forms of relief were based on
11 the same claim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1),
12 1208.16(b)(1)-(2), (c)(3); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
13 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED.
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4