*1 misrepresentations or omissions on all fours material DWQ complies from letter land.6 As detailed concerning B to its sale of in Addendum promise DLD’s above, not shown that Sanderford has indicating Confirmatory Report present a amounted to fraud because DLD’s actions “degraded coliform levels that fecal of false any to set forth evidence DLD fair- he fails level.” J.A. 469. acceptable concealment of material representations or DWQ’s analysis in its letter ly i’epresented therefore hold that the by facts DLD. We advised Sand- properly to Sanderford granting not err in sum- district court did was “suitable property that his erford DLD on Sanderford’s mary judgment 473. J.A. construction.” ILSFDA claim. has failed to establish Sanderford or concealment of representations false DLD; by intent facts made IV.
material DLD; or acts part on the deceive we affirm the foregoing, Based on the tendency capacity possessing DLD court. judgment of the district Therefore, by DLD. performed mislead AFFIRMED. sum- properly granted court the district claims for mary judgment on Sanderford’s practices.
fraud and unfair trade D. Finally, Sanderford contends summary in granting court erred district DLD claim for violation judgment to on his Interstate Land Sales Full Disclo- (“ILSFDA”). sure Act CHEN, Petitioner, LIN ZHAO en The ILSFDA “is a remedial statute interstate land fraud and prevent acted to and ill-informed protect unsuspecting Jr., HOLDER, H. Eric land.” buying from undesirable investors General, Respondent. P’ship, Ltd. Long v. Town Ctr. Merrifield Cir.2010). “To this No. 12-1596. end, requires specified statute Appeals, United States Court prior purchaser’s be made to a disclosures Fourth Circuit. Id. The Act execution of a sales contract.” requirements, provides disclosures April Submitted: 2013. 1703(a)(1), provi § and anti-fraud U.S.C. 1703(a)(2). sions, Sanderford July Decided: 2013. 1703(a)(2). only under proceeds law a claim for common
While fraud and a claim for violation of are not provisions ILSFDA’s anti-fraud identical, require the common they share prove DLD made
ment that Sanderford misrepresentation or DLD made a material assertions that DLD 6. Each of Sanderford’s ¶ Compl. 67. claim that omission. See the ILSFDA rests on a violated *2 Justice, D.C., of Washington, for Respon- dent. DUNCAN, AGEE, DAVIS,
Before Judges. Circuit Petition denied unpublished PER opinion. CURIAM Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Chen, Zhao Lin a native and citizen of China, People’s Republic petitions for review of an order of the Board of (“the Board”) Immigration Appeals dis- missing appeal his from the decision of the (“IJ”) immigration judge denying appli- asylum, cations for withholding removal Immigration under the and Naturalization (“INA”), Act and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). deny petition We for review because we conclude that substantial evi- supports dence the Board’s decision.
I
In Department late of Home- (“DHS”) Security land issued a Notice to Appear to him charging Chen with remov- ability as an alien having entered the Unit- ed place States at an unknown time and without inspection. Chen conceded re- movability, sought relief in form asylum, removal, withholding pro- tection under the CAT. Idowu, Adedayo O. Law Offices of Ade- Idowu, PLLC, York, dayo O. New application during pro- New In his York, Delery, IJ, for Petitioner. Stuart F. ceedings before the testified to General, Acting Assistant Shelley following: He was born in is not Goad, Director, married, R. Assistant Jennifer R. have and does not children. Khouri, Attorney, Immigra- Trial Office of up girlfriend he broke with his Litigation, Department depressed.1 Shortly tion United States and became thereaf- supporting employer indicating 1. Chen attached several docu- in China that he was application, including employment participat- ments to his verifica- terminated from church, identity, ing underground tion of a notice from his former in an a certificate perse- he would if he returned ter, him to Christiani- friend introduced faith. cuted for his Christian The attend church. began to ty, and Chen fixed location and was not in a church in the arriving that since indicated fear of dis- met in secret for congregants 2008, he had January States United *3 in different covery, “gathering] [their] restaurants, first in working been Chinese (J.A. 115.) May In members’ homes.” Virginia. in He in New York and now 2007, baptized. Chen was help to to money earned sends as a parents the debt his owe pay off evening on the recounted that Chen borrowing money pay result of congre- he and other November at- that he had snakehead. Chen stated at his friend’s house meeting were gants York, he in New but that tended church “rushed into police [their] officers when church Chinese-speaking a had not found place, [their] Biblefs] out gathering tor[e] have a that he did not Virginia in and destroyed things friend’s] his [ and him locate a church. help vehicle (J.A. 309.) and arbitrarily.” Chen home in aunt testified Chen’s were taken to the congregants the other that she She stated application. Chen’s re- interrogated. Chen police station and arrival in New after his upmet Chen questions answer the officers’ fused to York, told her he had fled and that Chen punched” several times.2 was “kicked for his faith. She being persecuted after (J.A. 89.) days, parents After four practice aware that Chen continued was money to se- enough were able to collect activities, Christianity attend church leaving police Before cure his release. in his religious pamphlets having observed station, a required sign guar- was Chen partici- him photographs residence stating par- that he would not antee letter in events. pating religious in underground in church activities ticipate addition, an affidavit Chen submitted employer was the future. When Chen’s had stating from his mother Chen he was involved in an under- notified that being in been arrested China for Chris- church, “disturbing been ground and had aware of his stated that she was tian. She order,” job for “tar- lost his social Chen activities, had ob- underground church company.” of the nish[ing] reputation thinner and bruised served that he was 101.) (J.A. in having by police been detained after November Based on the events of and that she and Chen’s November parents paying to leave His his release Chen decided China. father had secured rela- money money police. from friends and to the She also stated borrowed $75,000 medicine on Chen’s pay put liquid in order to a snakehead she some tives the deten- injuries from smuggle body into the United to treat fee to Chen corroborated mother also that he feared that tion. Chen’s States.3 testified Chen money Changle that he did not borrow indicating 3. Chen stated he was a member Church, indicating City and a notice and did not owe the Christian from the snakehead at a church in New that he had taken courses any money. told the IJ Chen also snakehead arriving City upon in the United States. York while in $100 than a month that he made less China, equiva- father made the and that his any remaining scars or 2. Chen testified that day. $5 $4 lent of having physical marks from been beat- other cigarette faded with a lit had en and burned very noticeable with time and were "not (J.A. 111.) now.” (J.A. 47.) had been dismissed from his “Accordingly,” that Chen the IJ found that partic- because of his employment China not met proof his burden of “ha[d] underground in the church. ipation show that whatever have occurred to him was as such to have constituted past also submitted an affidavit from persecution, or even to show that [Chen] friend him to who introduced possibility has some reasonable of future Christianity participate and invited him to (J.A. 47.) persecution.” The IJ next ob- in the church. The friend stated that served that “the REAL ID Act speaks also baptized May par- Chen had been to the of a respondent’s testimo- activities, ticipated in church and was ny,” whole, and concluded that as a meeting at the home church present *4 “general testimony nature” of Chen’s and police November 2007 when arrested the documentation led to the conclusion that congregants. testimony The friend’s ech- (J.A. 47-48.) Chen was not credible. For respect with to the police oed Chen’s de- these reasons the IJ that found Chen had home, stroying taking items at the Bibles not met his showing eligibility burden of and them at a congregants, detaining from asylum, or the more substantial burden The police station. friend stated that he of demonstrating entitlement for withhold- month, was detained for a at which time INA, ing of removal under the and that required sign guarantee he was also Chen had not requirements satisfied the stating participate that he would not in un- for relief under the CAT. derground church activities in the future.
The friend also that stated the Chinese appealed that decision to the government still wanted to arrest Chen. Board, arguing pro- that the IJ failed
Lastly, Chen introduced the U.S. State an adequate explanation vide for the deter- Department’s 2009 International Religious that minations Chen had failed to China, Report Freedom which referred sufficiently specific and testimony, detailed to the government’s sanctioning Chinese credible, that he was not and that his close-monitoring underground, and un- corroborating evidence not was sufficient report *5 satisfy not the more strin- that Chen could country to return to ... unwilling [his] withholding gent required standard [past] persecution because of or a well- (J.A. 4.) The Board also held removal. persecution founded fear of [future] that it had failed to establish Chen alia, of,” religious inter beliefs. account likely that he would be
was more than not 1101(A)(42)(A), §§ upon return to and there- tortured 1158(b)(l)(B)(l). An who en- applicant has ineligible for relief under the fore was past persecution dured is entitled Accordingly, the Board dismissed CAT. having a well-founded fear presumption appeal. Chen’s persecution. future 8 C.F.R. timely petition filed a for review 208.13(b)(1). § The REAL ID Act of 2005 Court, jurisdiction pursu- this and we have INA, applies amended the to Chen’s 1252(a)(1). § ant to 8 U.S.C. Act, ID the REAL application. Under II may testimony applicant [t]he applicant’s bur- sufficient sustain is Our review of Board’s decision corroboration, if only den without deferential, affording broad —but highly applicant satisfies the trier of fact the agency’s not absolute—deference to applicant’s testimony that the is credi- 1252(b)(4)(B)- § disposition. See 8 U.S.C. ble, persuasive, specific is and refers to Gonzales, (D); also Haoua v. 472 F.3d see to demonstrate that the facts sufficient (4th Cir.2007). uphold We refugee. determining is a applicant asylum denial of an claim “unless such applicant appli- whether the has met the law ‘manifestly contrary denial is to the burden, trier fact cant’s Zelaya discretion.’” and an abuse of (4th Cir.2012) Holder, testimony weigh along the credible 668 F.3d 1252(b)(4)(D)). § other evidence of record. Where (quoting U.S.C. appli- that the trier of fact determines asylum the denial of is based on When evidence that cor- provide cant should appli- conclusion that the [Board’s] testimony, roborates otherwise credible evidentiary bur- cant failed to meet his unless provided such evidence must be establishing eligibility, then we den for not have the evidence and must does review for substantial evidence reasonably and cannot obtain the evi- specifically not delineated the credibility dence. provision, they clearly determination con- stitute other “relevant factors.” 1158(b)(l)(B)(ii). 8 U.S.C. Holder, Shrestha v. attempted satisfy his burden of (9th Cir.2010) (“[Ejven though lack of de- proving eligibility asylum by showing tail is expressly as a listed factor that subjected past that he had been perse- may be considered the REAL ID [under cution on account of his Christian faith due Act’s determination provision at to his November 2007 detention. Chen 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii)], 8 U.S.C. the pre- contends the Board’s decision is not sup- REAL ID practice Act of looking to the ported by substantial evidence because it level of detail of the testimony claimant’s speculation conjecture was “based on credibility, assess Singh-Kaur see rather cogent than reasoning” INS, (9th Cir.1999), as to what relevant information Chen remains viable under the REAL ID Act as failed to to the IJ. (Opening Br. ”).4 it is a ‘relevant factor.’ Under these 11.) Chen asserts that if the Board had provisions, either specificity or paid testimony closer attention to his basis— be independently ade- corroborating —would giving it “sufficient quate grounds for determining that an ap- consideration,” the Board would have held plicant’s testimony satisfy fails to his bur- 14) favor. And he {Id. proving eligibility den of A claims that neither the IJ nor the Board lack generalized of detail and testimony any examples of “cite[d] Petitioner’s testi- can be both factor in assessing whether mony which were supposed gen- to be too *6 an has satisfied his or her overall (Id. 14.) eral.” at Chen maintains that proof burden of in considering and factor past because he established persecution, the credibility applicant’s of an testimony. he is entitled to the presumption having of analyses distinct, While the two they are a well-founded fear of future persecution overlap. do sometimes eligible asylum. and thus is case, In credibility We have reviewed the this the IJ’s adverse Board’s decision that determination and conclude substantial evidence the Board’s affirmance supports its determination that thereof directly Chen failed flowed from their over- eligibility to establish arching As not- concerns about the lack of detail ed, 1158(b)(l)(B)(ii), under 8 U.S.C. and the general, vague nature of Chen’s assess, alia, IJ must inter ap- testimony. Contrary whether an argu- to Chen’s plicant’s testimony ments, specific “refers to facts specific Board offered reasons determination, sufficient to demonstrate that for its appli- citing to the IJ’s cant refugee” is a and whether that testi- “particular “specific concerns” and exam- mony ples” is “credible.” Under 8 of how Chen’s evidence was too 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), detail, may generalized, IJ make an lacking and otherwise adverse determination after insufficient to credible evidence considering totality “the carry proof. of the circum- sufficient to his burden of stances, thoroughly and all relevant factors.” See J.A. 3. The IJ reviewed While detail, lack of vagueness, support and the like are the evidence present Chen did 2004); recognized Ashcroft, 4. Other courts have also that lack v. 378 F.3d Elzour detail, vagueness, (10th Cir.2004); of and omissions are salient Capric Ashcroft, 355 E.g., to an IJ's determination. Do (7th Cir.2004). F.3d (6th Ashcroft, rosh v. Cir. his had not satisfied why Chen case, examples ny, of specific of his noted status. satisfying proving refugee of Conse- fell short of burden why that evidence burden, conducted its and the Board and the Board as the IJ stated quently, his affirmed, the rec- burden that decision and failed to his “[meet] own review of dismissing appeal. have Chen’s that whatever proof ord before of to show “specific, cogent offered have con- doing, they him was such as to so occurred to determination, which or even to show past persecution, reason[s]” stituted conjecture, speculation, “based on possibility was not reasonable that has some [he] (J.A. 47.) unsupported personal an otherwise or The IJ persecution.” future Mukasey, F.3d See Zuh opinion.” present permitted Chen appropriately Cir.2008) (internal quotation satisfy his case and to develop omitted). Rather, the Board’s de- marks the Board then proof; it and burden on the to- claim was based nial of Chen’s totality of the evidence be- considered the failure to tality of the record and Chen’s it was insufficient fore them and concluded asylum, specifical- prove eligibility for have re- burden.7 We to meet Chen’s ly persecuted-as that he had been as well as the the Board’s decision viewed asy- term is understood in the context determination, it based its record on which corrobo- Because Chen’s lum—in China.5 com- the evidence is not “so and conclude fac- did not overcome this rating evidence factfinder could pelling that no reasonable appropriately the Board deficiency, tual established fail to find that [Chen] totality of evi- determined that the Dankam, asylum.” eligibility for satisfy his burden dence failed omitted). (internal quotation marks proof.6 supports Accordingly, substantial evidence did not the Board’s conclusion pointed
The Board’s decision
eligibility
asylum
based
and demonstrate
regarding the lack of detail
concerns
past persecution.
testimo-
generalized
nature of Chen’s
observe,
proof,
through
"[p]er-
present
be it
testi-
required to
sufficient
5. As we are often
corroborating
mony
concept that does not
secution is an extreme
*7
deficiency
That
in Chen's
every
soci-
his claim.
same
include
sort of treatment
our
Gonzales,
testimony supported the adverse
ety regards
Li v.
as offensive.”
Cir.2005) (internal
(4th
IJ and Board decisions
quota-
determination. The
F.3d
omitted);
(sufficiency
permissible
invoked two
factors
marks
see also id. at 177-78
tion
considering
credibility)
ultimate-
(delineating
demonstrating
point,
cases
this
—and
ly denying
application.
including
applicant's deten-
ones where an
—Chen’s
tion,
beatings,
depri-
interrogation,
and other
compel
past
vations did not
a conclusion
dissenting opinion
that an IJ
is correct
7. The
persecution). While the events Chen related
development
of the record.
has a role
the
justifiable,
provide ade-
are not
Chen failed to
a series of
The IJ in this case did ask Chen
deter-
quate
from which the IJ could
details
refer
questions to "determine a frame of
events rose to the level of
ence,”
mine that those
which
not fleshed out on direct
“was
recognizes
jurisprudence
"perse-
what our
as
examination,
it fleshed out on cross
nor was
such,
satisfy
he failed to
cution.” As
(J.A. 73.)
of the
redirect.”
At the outset
and,
refugee
demonstrating
status
burden of
throughout,
proceedings and
the IJ took
turn, eligibility
asking
questioning
active role in
however,
not,
second
clarification. We do
as we
dissenting opinion's
guess
scope
the
of the IJ’s intervention
disagree with the
6. We
unless it is
substituting
uphold
are to
the Board’s decision
that we are
our
characterization
manifestly contrary
the law and an abuse
IJ and the
own
for that of the
rationale
Holder, 611 F.3d
clarity,
See Lin v.
is a model of
of discretion.
Board. Neither decision
(4th Cir.2010).
grounded
they are
in Chen’s failure
both
contends that even if he did
religion
Chen also
secution” on account of
for pur-
he nonethe
past persecution,
not establish
poses
withholding
of removal. See 8
fear of
less demonstrated well-founded
1231(b)(3);
Dankam,
see also
persecution
future
on account of his reli
(Because
F.3d at 124
higher
stan-
gion.
persecu
The “well-founded fear of
proof, “[petitioner’s]
dard of
failure to es-
components:
tion” standard consists
two
eligibility
tablish
for asylum necessarily
subjective part requires
the alien to means she cannot
eligibility
demonstrate
“candid, credible,
present
tes
sincere
for withholding of removal under
timony demonstrating
genuine
fear of
INA.”).
persecution,”
objective component
and the
So, too,
we
do
affirm the Board’s deci-
requires
provide “specific,
him to
concrete
sion with regard
application
to Chen’s
facts that would
person
lead
reasonable
CAT,
relief
“prohibits
under the
which
in like
to fear persecution.”
circumstances
United States from returning any person
Ngarurih Ashcroft,
v.
187-88
country
person
to a
where the
has demon-
(4th Cir.2004).
points
to the same
likely
strated that it is more
than not that
satisfy
evidence of
past persecution
he will be tortured if returned to such
subjective component and to China’s “well
country.” Zelaya,
tute under the statute usually rely cannot on the same evidence DENIED. to show a per well-founded fear of future *8 secution, prove but must she has reason to DAVIS, Judge, dissenting: Circuit
believe she will be treated upon worse In this the country). return to her case General asks accept credibility us to an adverse deter- B mination on missing based details that the Attorney General never mentioned before supports Because substantial evidence the IJ and that the IJ never requested the Board’s decision that Chen has not met “[ujnlike showing petitioner. his burden for n.6. But an eligibility asy- infra lum, necessarily judge, merely it Article III an IJ is not the follows that substantial adjudicator, evidence fact finder and but also has an supports also its decision that satisfy higher obligation develop Chen did not the burden of to establish and the rec- Gonzales, 53, demonstrating a “clear probability per- ord.” Islam v. 469 F.3d 55 372 Cir.2006).1
(2d
Indeed,
statutorily
enable the administrative deci-
an IJ is
would
examine,
applicants
“interrogate,
reject
whichever
required to
sionmaker
any
alien and
wit-
happens
to disfavor.
cross-examine
that fact-finder
(b)(1).
§ 1229a
8 U.S.C.
nesses.”
Immigration Ap
Bd.
Ming Shi Xue v.
responsibility, “[a]n
with this
Cir.2006)
Consistent
(2d
(em
111,
439 F.3d
123
peals,
reason for
specific, cogent
offer a
IJ must
Qiu v.
original) (quoting
Jin Shui
phasis
evidence,
whether testimonial
rejecting
(2d
140,
F.3d
151-52
Cir.
Ashcroft, 329
credibility.”
documentary, because it lacks
2003)).
Accordingly,
adopt
we should
(4th
Holder,
710, 720
v.
660 F.3d
Tassi
hold that
view of the Second Circuit and
added).
Cir.2011)
“Examples of
(emphasis
wherein an alien seeks
proceeding
in a
include incon-
cogent
reasons
removal,
finding
from
a
of testimo-
relief
statements,
contradictory
sistent
cannot,
more,
vagueness
nial
without
testimony....”
inherently improbable
support an adverse
determi-
Gonzales,
533,
v.
538
Tewabe
counsel or the
government
nation unless
(internal
Cir.2006)
quotation marks omit-
attempts to
more detail
IJ first
solicit
ted).
that
lack of
We have never said
from the alien.
itself,
enough
in and of
is
for an
specificity,
(2d
F.3d
Mukasey,
Li v.
credibility determination —and for
adverse
Cir.2008).2
Because
good reason.
already
a similar rule with
impose
We
circumstantial
can be
the list of
details
determina-
respect
adverse
indefinitely,
legal
expanded
standard
corroborating
on the lack of
tions based
an IJ or the
empowers
[Board]
Gonzales,
v.
evidence. See Lin-Jian
against
petitioner
rule
who fails
(4th Cir.2007) (“The
require-
F.3d
particular
set of details
anticipate
(but
applicant provide
ment that the
a reason-
that the fact-finder desires
does not
lack
explanation
able
for the
of corroborat-
through questions directed to
request,
that the
ing
‘presumes
is no standard at all.
It
evidence
IJ
applicant)
offers
asylum applicant
putting
Mukasey,
F.3d
counseled
for-
1. Accord Sankoh
courts,
(7th Cir.2008) ("Unlike
Article III
asylum claim in the
ward an affirmative
first
inquisitorial
immigration
is a more
Li,
(internal
an
court
place.”
Holland v.
631, 130
560 U.S.
S.Ct.
reread pages
through
majority
the
2549, 2562, 177
(2010) (observ
L.Ed.2d 130
opinion.
Is the narrative there incomplete
that,
ing
under “the interpretive maxim or incoherent?
Is the reader left wonder-
alterius,”
unius est
inclusio
exclusio
“to
ing
happened
what
to Chen that prompted
one item ...
include
is to exclude other
escape
from China? Does the reader
items”).
similar
any implausibility
discern
telling gaps
or
in
Here,
credibility
the adverse
the
determina-
narrative? The answer
query
to each
tion
moreover,
was based on Chen’s failure to
Notably,
is no.
majority
the
that neither
govern-
details
the IJ nor
provided only
the
has
a cursory summary of
requested:
ment
many people
“how
were
the detailed testimonial
documentary
praying with
when he
arrest-
evidence that
[Chen]”
was
was before the
The
IJ.5
doc-
China,
ed in
they
“where
were praying,”
umentary
in particular,
is ful-
assess,
alia,
permits
3. The
statute also
must
applicant’s
adverse
inter
whether an
determinations on the basis of
testimony
‘refers to
facts sufficient to
the demeanor
candor
... of
applicant
refugee’
[and]
the
demonstrate
the
is a
”
witness,
applicant
plausibili-
or
the inherent
testimony
and whether that
is ‘credible.’
Id.
account,
ty
applicant’s
of the
or
1158(b)(l)(B)(ii)).
witness's
(quoting
§
at 369
8 U.S.C.
consistency
fact,
the
between
applicant's
or
In
by
majority
cited
standard
witness’s written and oral
statements
applies only
when
seeks to meet
(whenever made and whether
not under
or
proof
coiroborating
his burden of
without
evi
oath,
considering
the circumstances
1158(b)(l)(B)(ii).
dence. 8 U.S.C.
More
made),
under which the statements were
over,
language appears
the cited
nowhere in
consistency
the internal
ment,
of each such state-
affirming
the Board’s
order
the IJ’s
brief
deci
consistency
of such statements
improper
sion. The Board
”act[ed]
(including
with other evidence of record
grounds” by affirming on the basis of the
reports
Department
of State on coun-
determination,
flawed
and the ma
conditions),
try
fal-
inaccuracies or
jority
"powerless
is
to affirm ...
substitut
in such
sehoods
statements....
ing
adequate
what it
considers
be more
1158(b)(l)(B)(iii).
8 U.S.C.
The IJ re-
proper
Chenery Corp.,
basis.” SEC
lied on no such considerations
this case.
1575,
U.S.
67 S.Ct.
Unpublished opinions binding are not precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jones, Jr., Alonzo Dale pled guilty to base, in distribution of cocaine violation of (b)(1)(B) (West 841(a)(1), 21 U.S.C.A. Supp.2013). 1999 & The district court sen imprisonm tenced Jones to 102 months’ America, UNITED STATES appeal, ent.* On Jones’ counsel has filed Plaintiff-Appellee, a brief pursuant California, to Anders v. 738, 1396, 386 U.S. 87 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (1967), certifying that there are no merito JONES, Jr., Dale Defendant- Alonzo appeal questioning rious issues for Appellant. substantive reasonableness of Jones’ sen Although tence. informed of his right to No. 12-4994. so, do Jones has not filed a pro se brief. Appeals, States United Court affirm. We Fourth Circuit. We review Jones’ sentence for reason- ableness, applying a “deferential abuse-of- Submitted: June 2013. discretion standard.” Gall v. United July Decided: 2013. States, 38, 51, 552 U.S. 128 S.Ct. (2007). begin by
L.Ed.2d We review- ing significant the sentence procedural for error, including improper calculation of the range, Guidelines failure to consider sen- 3553(a) tencing factors under 18 U.S.C. (2006), clearly sentencing based on errone- Firm, facts, Driver, adequately explain Michael B. Driver Law ous or failure to PA, Durham, Carolina, Appel- imposed. North the sentence Id. at 128 S.Ct. Barrett, that the lant. Clifton Thomas Assistant 586. Once we have determined Greensboro, Attorney, significant procedural sentence is free of United States Carolina, error, we must the substantive Appellee. North consider added). (emphases imposed upon repeat if J.A. 49 could be offender * eligible the individual defendant was not initially was sentenced to 124 months’ Jones sentence). By such a order entered on No imprisonment. appeal, parties filed a On 28, 2011, motion, granted vember we joint light motion to remand this case in sentence, vacated the and remanded the case this court's decision in United States v. Sim mons, Jones, resentencing. (4th Cir.2011) See United States v. 241-49 (4th Cir.2011) (en banc) (unpublished or (holding No. 11-4466 Carolina of that North der). imposed felony The 102-month sentence was based fense classified as resentencing. aggravated on the maximum sentence that authorized churches. The notes independently satisfy his burdens. The that in regions, police disrupt some house Board concluded that substantial evidence meetings, detain congregants, and interro- supported and, particu- IJ’s decision in gate individuals about their in participation lar, noted: home churches. Contrary arguments on ap- [Chen’s] [IJ], The IJ denied the relief requested. peal, making before his adverse recounting the evidence summarized finding, particu- identified his above, testimony testimony the IJ noted that lar concerns of the “very general” “gave very respondent was and few and his witness as well as to” church documentary details as activities in China evidence submitted be- and the surrounding Specifically provided par- circumstances his No- low. the [IJ] arrest, detention, subsequent vember 4 examples general ticular of the nature (J.A. 46.) interrogation. missing The IJ and the details from the testi- concluded, sum, “that mony testimo- of both He [Chen’s] [Chen] [his aunt]. detailed, ny itself was specific specific problems not nor also described with the the corroborating specific vagueness documentary was evidence of the evidence detailed, required as REAL missing under the and identified information be- Act, respondent’s determining ID in the absence of the fore [Chen] did testimony being specific independently and detailed.” establish his claim on the statutory ineli- a determination of corroborating evidence. affirm basis the evi- gibility by made his credibil- unless appropriately [Board] J] The [I totality on the presented compelling based was so ity determination dence and, specifically, on of the circumstances factfinder could fail to no reasonable testi- that neither the his determination eligibility find corroborating evidence mony nor Gonzales, 495 F.3d Dankam v. and detailed. were Cir.2007) (internal marks quotation 3.) (J.A. that the IJ The Board observed omitted). documentary the limited had “considered in- conjunction with [Chen’s] evidence A testimony determining that he credible (J.A. 4.) proof.” had not met his burden The INA authorizes the Gen- concluded that the IJ Because the Board asylum any refugee. eral to confer “correctly respondent that the determined 1158(a). asy- An met his burden to demonstrate had not proving the burden of that he lum bears asylum,” recognized it also eligibility for status, e., refugee i. that he is “unable holds