Buestan-Tenecora v. Sessions, 707 F. App'x 55

Petitioner Laura Ines Buestan-Tenecora, an Ecuadorian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after alleged intimate-partner abuse and threats by her abuser.
An Immigration Judge denied relief on September 11, 2014; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on February 24, 2016.
The agency found Buestan-Tenecora credible but concluded she failed to corroborate key aspects of her claim (statements from her daughter, mother, and family in Ecuador about abuse and continued threats).
The IJ required corroboration because testimony about the abuser’s continued interest was not firsthand and lacked specific supporting facts under the REAL ID Act.
Buestan-Tenecora did not challenge the BIA’s corroboration finding in her appellate brief; she later compiled new evidence in a remand motion but still did not submit statements from the identified family witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner waived review of the BIA’s corroboration finding	Buestan-Tenecora argued agency should accept her credible testimony as undisputed	Government argued she failed to challenge corroboration in briefing, thus waived review	Court: Waiver — petitioner did not challenge corroboration; review denied
Whether the IJ/BIA erred in requiring corroboration under the REAL ID Act	Petitioner contended her credible testimony alone should suffice	Government: corroboration may be required when testimony lacks specific, firsthand facts	Court: No error — testimony about continued threats was not firsthand/specific; corroboration properly required
Whether corroborating evidence was reasonably available	Petitioner implied evidence unavailable or urged acceptance of her testimony	Government: petitioner failed to submit statements or explain their absence; no showing evidence unavailable	Court: Even if challenged, agency reasonably found corroboration available and petitioner failed to obtain it
Whether alternative bases for denial must be reached	Petitioner contested agency factual findings	Government maintained denial was proper and dispositive on corroboration grounds	Court: Declined to reach alternative bases because corroboration ruling was dispositive

Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (scope of review of IJ decisions as supplemented by the BIA)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review in immigration appeals)
Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011) (asylum applicant burden to show persecution)
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (subjective and objective components of well-founded fear)
Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (speculative fear not well-founded; credibility and specificity requirements)
Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (issues not argued are waived)
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (courts need not decide issues unnecessary to outcome)