Guangguo An v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUANGGUO AN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71794
Agency No. A089 724 947
MEMORANDUM*
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Guangguo An petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge (IJ) in denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 4 --

Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We deny the petition.
1. An argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that he failed to
meet his burden of proof, where the IJ did not make an adverse credibility
determination and An offered his testimony and other evidence of his Christian
faith and past persecution. As an initial matter, under the REAL ID Act, which An
acknowledges applies to his petition, an adverse credibility determination is not a
prerequisite for requiring reasonably obtainable corroboration. Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010); Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1044 (9th
Cir. 2009). Further, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that An’s lack of
corroboration was fatal to his petition. See Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th
Cir. 2014). While An offered some corroboration evidence, he was unable to
produce testimony from anyone else at his Los Angeles church – despite the fact
that he was granted a continuance of his hearing due to witness unavailability – or
1 An did not challenge the IJ’s denial of protection under the CAT in his
appeal to the BIA.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

documentation to support his claims that he worked as a teacher in China and
resigned from that position on religious grounds.2
2. An also argues that errors by the interpreter – an inability to translate the
Chinese word for “Pontius Pilate” and repeated mistranslations of “Revelation” as
“Deuteronomy” during An’s testimony – rendered the proceedings fundamentally
unfair because they impacted his credibility concerning his belief in and
knowledge of Christianity. The BIA expressly disclaimed the relative
persuasiveness of An’s testimony as the basis for its denial of relief, instead noting
that its conclusion was a result of An’s inability to adequately corroborate his
claims. As such, An has not demonstrated that the interpretation errors prejudiced
the outcome of his proceeding. See Aden, 589 F.3d at 1047. Even if the BIA had
considered An’s testimony, it is unlikely that a better translation would have made
a difference in the outcome of the hearing because the interpretation issues were
relatively minor, particularly in light of other inconsistencies in An’s testimony
regarding his knowledge of Christianity and his account of his arrest in China. See
2 The BIA also correctly noted that a letter from An’s father – one piece of
corroboration evidence – did not mention An’s arrest on April 8, 2007 while he
was participating at a Christian gathering, despite the fact that An testified that his
father was also present at the gathering.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

Acewicz v. I.N.S., 984 F.2d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Cerda-
Pena, 799 F.2d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986).
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --