Haixin Sun v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAIXIN SUN, No. 15-70024 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-994-782 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 19, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District Judge. Petitioner Haixin Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") of his appeal of an order of an immigration judge ("IJ") denying his applications for withholding of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition. 1. We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence; to overturn such a finding, the evidence must compel a contrary conclusion. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738–39 (9th Cir. 2014). Among other reasons why the IJ disbelieved Petitioner was his testimony concerning his mother’s alleged injury. Petitioner’s declaration claimed that his mother’s nose was broken during an encounter with authorities, but did not mention any hospitalization. During his testimony, Petitioner claimed that his mother was hospitalized for a month as a result of the encounter. We must uphold an adverse credibility determination if even one proper ground identified by the agency is supported by substantial evidence. Id. 2. The IJ did not err by failing to give Petitioner notice that his corroborative evidence was insufficient and an opportunity to provide additional evidence. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing such a requirement in certain circumstances). Notice and an opportunity to supplement the record were not required here because the IJ found that Petitioner was not credible for reasons apart from a failure to corroborate. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1008–09 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining when Ren does not 2 apply); Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir. 2016) (same). Moreover, with respect to medical records concerning his mother, Petitioner testified that he had asked his mother for hospital records and that she was unable to obtain any; under these circumstances, the IJ was not required to provide a further opportunity to obtain such records. 3. The evidence other than Petitioner’s testimony did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT protection. Petition DENIED. 3 15-70024 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Haixin Sun v. Jefferson Sessions 28 March 2018 Agency Unpublished a2f352e5eb64d51291431fbb2081c6083178bb36

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals