NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OK HUA KIM, No. 15-70337 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-791-637 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 10, 2018 Submission Deferred August 13, 2018 Resubmitted December 3, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,** District Judge. Petitioner, Ok Hua Kim a.k.a. Yuhua Jin (Kim), seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.1 Factual findings and the agency’s denials of asylum and withholding of removal are reviewed for substantial evidence. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009) (factual findings); Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004) (asylum and withholding of removal). Under this “highly deferential” standard, we will overturn the BIA’s decision, only if the petitioner “show[s] that the evidence compels reversal.” Chebchoub v. I.N.S., 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014). Asylum is available to applicants who (1) demonstrate statutory eligibility for asylum as a “refugee,” and (2) merit a favorable exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). Under the Real ID Act, an applicant may establish eligibility based on credible testimony alone, without any corroboration. 8 U.S.C § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). However, “[w]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.” Id. Kim argues that the immigration judge (IJ) did not provide proper notice that 1 The facts are familiar to the parties and are restated here only as necessary to resolve the issues of the petition for review. 2 additional corroboration was required before concluding that Kim had not met her burden of proof. We conclude that Kim was provided adequate notice. At the first evidentiary hearing, during Kim’s direct examination testimony, the IJ initially denied Kim’s request for a continuance to provide testimony from her sister. But after certain areas of Kim’s testimony lacking corroboration were identified on cross examination, the IJ allowed a continuance for further evidence, remarking that a continuance “[s]ounds like a good idea.” Kim’s sister testified at a further evidentiary hearing approximately one-and-a-half years later. We conclude that, under these circumstances, Kim was put on notice that her testimony alone would not be sufficient to meet ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals