Jie Liu v. Jefferson Sessions

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIE SHI LIU, No. 12-74077 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A087-598-003 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 16, 2018 Honolulu, Hawaii Filed June 1, 2018 Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Richard R. Clifton, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Clifton 2 LIU V. SESSIONS SUMMARY* Immigration The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that Liu’s testimony, even if credible, was not persuasive, did not sufficiently demonstrate eligibility for relief, and was therefore subject to the corroborating evidence requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). The panel held that the immigration judge gave Liu sufficient notice that corroborating evidence would be required, and that the notice was specific enough to satisfy the requirements of Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011). Because Liu had sufficient notice and failed to provide any meaningful corroborating evidence, the panel denied the petition for review. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. LIU V. SESSIONS 3 COUNSEL Jisheng Li (argued), Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Petitioner. Michele Y. F. Sarko (argued) and Kiley L. Kane, Trial Attorneys; John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: Jie Shi Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of removal based upon the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Liu asserts that he was persecuted because of his political opinion. Specifically, he claims that he resisted China’s family planning policies and that as a result, he was detained and his wife was forced to undergo an abortion and sterilization. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) determined that Liu failed to provide necessary corroborating evidence, had not suffered past persecution, and did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Liu contests those findings and also argues that the IJ erred by not giving him notice that he needed to provide corroborating evidence. Because the IJ’s notice to Liu was sufficient, we deny Liu’s petition and do not reach the other arguments. 4 LIU V. SESSIONS I. Background Liu is married with one son. Shortly after giving birth to that son in China, Liu’s wife inserted a contraceptive ring. Two years later she unexpectedly became pregnant. She allegedly hid at a third party’s house to avoid family planning officials, but they found her approximately one week later. The officials allegedly took her to a hospital and subjected her to an abortion and forced sterilization. Shortly thereafter, Liu learned that ...

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