NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HONG YANG, No. 21-71010 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-602-479 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and submitted June 9, 2022 Anchorage, Alaska Before: HURWITZ, BRESS, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Hong Yang, a citizen of China, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for substantial evidence and may grant relief only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. Yali Wang v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.1 1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). Where, as here, “the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2011). Yang has not demonstrated error in the IJ’s determination that Yang was required to provide corroborating evidence supporting his claim. Yang agreed before the BIA that the IJ correctly characterized his case as presenting “two potential realities”—that Yang was either the victim of government persecution, or, alternatively, the aggressor who engaged in corporate sabotage of a pipeline. Thus, 1 Yang has not challenged the denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection, and those claims are therefore forfeited. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1295–96 & n.1 (9th Cir. 2019). 2 the IJ could reasonably require Yang to produce additional corroborating evidence. See Ren, 648 F.3d at 1093. Nor did the BIA err in concluding that Yang failed to offer reasonably available corroborating evidence or sufficiently explain why he could not obtain the requested evidence. The BIA noted that “[t]he Immigration Judge found that [Yang] did not establish that he took reasonable steps to contact his prior attorney to obtain the evidence requested by the Immigration Judge[,] and [Yang] has not challenged that finding on appeal.” The BIA further noted that Yang “has not presented any other arguments on appeal challenging the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that [Yang] did not meet his burden of proof …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals