QIUYUN ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent, 688 F. App'x 51

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Qiuyun Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 25, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a March 9, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiuyun Zheng, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2016), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 9, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the bases for denying relief that were not considered by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009). To qualify for asylum, Zheng was required to demonstrate that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his resistance to the family planning policy.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b); see also Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-10, 313 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that alien cannot obtain asylum based on harm suffered by a spouse or partner).

The agency did not err in finding that Zheng’s burden was not satisfied because he failed to submit reasonably available, reliable evidence to corroborate his claim that family planning officials detained and beat him for posting a sign expressing opposition to China’s family planning policy, and that he escaped detention and was able to flee China despite his fugitive status with the assistance of a smuggler. “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(ii); see also Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97.

In this case, it was reasonable for the agency to require corroboration because Zheng’s testimony was not sufficiently detailed to be persuasive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(ii) (“Where 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.”); see also Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-97.

Moreover, the agency properly identified the missing evidence, noting that Zheng failed to submit a statement from the friend who helped him create the sign that resulted in his arrest, a certified medical report, or evidence that he borrowed money to pay a significant sum to smugglers. Zheng failed to explain why he did not provide this evidence. See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 198 (“[T]he alien bears the ultimate burden of introducing such evidence without prompting from the IJ.”).

Furthermore, although Zheng submitted letters from his former fiancée, aunt, and father, the agency did not err in declining to credit those letters because they were un-sworn. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to agency’s decision to afford little weight to relative’s letter because it was unsworn and from an interested witness). Accordingly, the agency reasonably concluded that Zheng failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his opposition to the family planning policy.

See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-98. That finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.