Hongjiang Chuai v. Jefferson Sessions
708 F. App'x 447
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Chuai, a Chinese national, sought asylum and withholding of removal claiming religious persecution; he later abandoned his CAT claim and did not press it on appeal.
- The IJ required corroborating evidence of Chuai’s religious practice and persecution; Chuai was given about 1.5 years to produce it.
- On remand from this court, the BIA found Chuai had adequate notice and opportunity to provide corroboration but failed to proffer translated documents or request leave to submit them.
- At the merits hearing Chuai made a third continuance request for translations; the IJ denied the request as untimely and after ample prior continuances.
- Chuai presented largely uncorroborated, internally inconsistent testimony (alleged beatings, detentions, reporting to police, mailing religious materials), and did not show that his life or freedom would likely be threatened if returned to China.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA complied with remand requiring notice/opportunity to produce corroboration | Ren required notice; Chuai says he lacked fair chance or could not timely translate documents | BIA: Chuai had notice and time, failed to proffer or seek leave to submit corroboration | BIA complied with remand; ample notice/opportunity given |
| Whether denial of continuance was abuse of discretion | Chuai argued need for more time to obtain translations | Gov: Chuai had 1.5 years and delayed until merits hearing; never submitted translations thereafter | Denial was not an abuse; IJ acted within due process and 8 C.F.R. §1003.29 |
| Whether Chuai proved past persecution for asylum | Chuai relied on testimony of beatings, detention, interrogations, weekly police reports, propaganda coercion | Gov: Evidence insufficient, uncorroborated, and internally inconsistent | Court: Facts do not rise to past persecution; asylum denied |
| Whether Chuai proved eligibility for withholding of removal | Chuai asserted risk of religious persecution if returned | Gov: No evidence that life or freedom would be threatened | Court: No evidence of likelihood of severe harm; withholding denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for BIA legal conclusions)
- Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence review of BIA factual findings)
- Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ must give notice and opportunity to produce required corroboration)
- Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (burden for withholding of removal)
- Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010) (burden for asylum)
- Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2006) (similar facts held not to constitute past persecution)
- United States v. Mateo-Mendez, 215 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2000) (issue preservation on appeal)