Wei Sun v. Jefferson B. Sessions III
883 F.3d 23
2d Cir.2018Background
- Wei Sun, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after entering the U.S. on a visitor visa in 2007; he alleged past mistreatment in China for underground Christian worship and fear of future persecution.
- At the merits hearing Sun was found generally credible but the Immigration Judge (IJ) concluded his testimony was vague and lacked specific details and corroboration (e.g., pastor letters, attendance records, statement from his wife).
- The IJ found corroboration was reasonably available, Sun had years to obtain it, and denied relief for failure to meet his burden; the IJ also alternatively found lack of well‑founded fear of future persecution.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, relying on Matter of L‑A‑C‑ and holding the REAL ID Act does not mandate that an IJ give specific advance notice of the evidence needed or automatically grant a continuance before ruling.
- Sun appealed, arguing (following Ren v. Holder) that §1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) requires notice and an opportunity to produce corroboration before an adverse ruling.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo legal questions and for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, applied Chevron deference to the BIA, and denied Sun’s petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper interpretation of REAL ID corroboration provision (8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)) | Sun: IJ must give notice and opportunity to produce corroboration before ruling (per Ren) | BIA: statute ambiguous; does not require advance notice or automatic continuance; follow Matter of L‑A‑C‑ | Court: statute ambiguous; BIA’s interpretation reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference; reject Ren rule |
| Procedural requirement to grant continuance when corroboration lacking | Sun: continuance and additional hearing required to allow submission of identified evidence | BIA/IJ: continuance discretionary; applicant may request continuance and must show good cause; no automatic right | Court: no automatic continuance required; Sun did not request one and had years to obtain evidence, so denial proper |
| Adequacy of IJ’s corroboration analysis and notice to applicant | Sun: IJ should have specified what evidence was needed prior to disposition | IJ/BIA: IJ identified missing evidence in decision, asked for explanations, and applied established pre‑REAL ID procedures | Court: IJ followed appropriate procedure; Sun bore burden to introduce corroboration without prompting |
| Application of burden standards to withholding/CAT relief | Sun: failure on asylum should not foreclose other relief | Government: withholding requires higher standard; CAT has separate showing | Court: failure to prove asylum also forecloses withholding; CAT standard not met on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (held IJ must give notice and opportunity to produce corroboration before ruling)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations)
- Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2009) (pre‑REAL ID guidance: IJ should identify missing corroboration, allow explanation, then assess and may grant continuance)
- Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009) (BIA entitled to Chevron deference in immigration statutory interpretation)
- INS v. Aguirre‑Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (deference principles to agency statutory interpretation)
- Vanegas‑Ramirez v. Holder, 768 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussion of asylum/withholding standards)