Zheng v. Garland, 20-60183

Chun Yan Zheng, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. without inspection and conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief based on persecution for joining an underground Christian family church.
Zheng testified she attended multiple home church gatherings in Sept–Oct 2018, received a Bible, was arrested at a gathering, detained for a week, and released but ordered to report weekly; she later hid and fled China in Feb 2019.
Zheng submitted various documents (detention and release records, fine receipt, hospital certificate, police summons, divorce certificate, and an International Religious Freedom Report) but did not present written statements from her parents or the friend who introduced her to the church before the IJ hearing.
The IJ found Zheng’s testimony credible but denied relief because she failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence (parents’ and friend’s statements) for key events.
On appeal to the BIA Zheng submitted a parents’ statement, but the BIA affirmed the IJ, agreeing that reasonably available corroboration was lacking and noting it reviews only the record before the IJ.
Zheng petitioned for review contesting (1) the IJ/BIA requirement for corroboration and (2) the refusal to remand to consider her parents’ belated statement; the Fifth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IJ/BIA erred by denying asylum despite the IJ finding Zheng credible because she lacked corroborating evidence	Zheng: Credible testimony should suffice; the corroboration requirement was excessive given her evidence and reasonable explanations for unavailability (parents illiterate, letter mailed later).	Gov: IJ permissibly required reasonably available corroboration; Zheng failed to produce parents’ or friend’s statements and offered inadequate explanations for their absence.	Affirmed — IJ/BIA acted within discretion to require corroboration; Zheng failed to meet burden and record does not compel contrary finding.
Whether BIA should have remanded for IJ to consider parents’ statement submitted on appeal	Zheng: BIA should remand so IJ can consider the parents’ belated statement.	Gov: Zheng did not present a remand request to the BIA below; issue is unexhausted.	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Zheng failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for BIA factual findings).
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (review limited to BIA opinion unless IJ influenced BIA).
Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2020) (IJ may require corroboration even if testimony is credible).
Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2011) (applicants can be denied solely for failing corroboration requirement).
Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2005) (asylum denials reviewed under substantial-evidence standard).
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (requiring showing that evidence compels a contrary conclusion to reverse).
Vazquez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 862 (5th Cir. 2018) (exhaustion requirement for BIA claims).
Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2009) (failure to raise issue before BIA constitutes failure to exhaust).