Haixin Sun v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAIXIN SUN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70024
Agency No. A089-994-782
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 19, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District
Judge.
Petitioner Haixin Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of
the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") of his appeal of an
order of an immigration judge ("IJ") denying his applications for withholding of
FILED
MAR 28 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny
the petition.
1. We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence;
to overturn such a finding, the evidence must compel a contrary conclusion.
Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738–39 (9th Cir. 2014). Among other
reasons why the IJ disbelieved Petitioner was his testimony concerning his
mother’s alleged injury. Petitioner’s declaration claimed that his mother’s nose
was broken during an encounter with authorities, but did not mention any
hospitalization. During his testimony, Petitioner claimed that his mother was
hospitalized for a month as a result of the encounter. We must uphold an adverse
credibility determination if even one proper ground identified by the agency is
supported by substantial evidence. Id.
2. The IJ did not err by failing to give Petitioner notice that his
corroborative evidence was insufficient and an opportunity to provide additional
evidence. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing
such a requirement in certain circumstances). Notice and an opportunity to
supplement the record were not required here because the IJ found that Petitioner
was not credible for reasons apart from a failure to corroborate. See Yali Wang v.
Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1008–09 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining when Ren does not
2

-- 2 of 3 --

apply); Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir. 2016) (same).
Moreover, with respect to medical records concerning his mother, Petitioner
testified that he had asked his mother for hospital records and that she was unable
to obtain any; under these circumstances, the IJ was not required to provide a
further opportunity to obtain such records.
3. The evidence other than Petitioner’s testimony did not establish
eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT protection.
Petition DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --