## Facts

- Yaogang Ren, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States on a nonimmigrant B-1 visa on February 27, 2005.
- On June 7, 2005, Ren applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- Ren claimed that he became a Christian in China and participated in an unregistered “house church.”
- Ren alleged that Chinese police arrested him for his religious activity, detained him for several days, interrogated him, beat and abused him, and forced him to sign a written confession.
- Ren further claimed that after his release he was monitored and feared further harm if he returned to China.
- During the removal proceedings, the Immigration Judge (IJ) identified differences between Ren’s written submissions and his oral testimony, including inconsistencies about dates and event details.
- The IJ also questioned Ren about Christianity and concluded that Ren’s knowledge was inadequate.
- The IJ continued the proceedings for about five months so Ren could submit corroborating documents the IJ identified as expected, including a receipt or similar document connected to his release from detention in China (a “bail” receipt) and proof from his U.S. church, such as a letter from his pastor and a baptismal certificate.
- Ren did not provide the requested corroboration and did not give an explanation for failing to obtain it.
- The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Ren’s appeal, and Ren petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility finding under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard.
2. Whether the IJ could deny relief based on missing corroboration where the IJ identified the evidence sought and provided time to obtain it, and the applicant neither produced the evidence nor explained its absence.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit denied Ren’s petition for review.
- The court held that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it relied on misreadings of the record and inconsistencies that were minor when considered in context.
- The court also rejected the IJ’s reliance on the judge’s own expectations about Ren’s religious knowledge as a basis to discredit Ren.
- Even so, the court held that the IJ permissibly required corroboration and gave Ren clear notice of the specific documents expected, along with a continuance of roughly five months to obtain them.
- Because Ren failed to submit the requested corroboration and provided no explanation for the failure, the record did not compel a conclusion that he met his burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection.

## Legal Principles

- Under the REAL ID Act, an IJ may consider inconsistencies and inaccuracies in assessing credibility, but the decision must still be supported by substantial evidence when the record is viewed as a whole.
- Minor discrepancies, misunderstandings, or mischaracterizations of testimony cannot alone support an adverse credibility finding when they do not reasonably show untruthfulness in context.
- Credibility determinations may not rest on an adjudicator’s personal assumptions about what a religious adherent should know; the assessment must be tied to the record.
- Even if testimony is treated as credible, an IJ may require reasonably obtainable corroborating evidence when it is reasonable to expect such proof.
- Before denying relief for lack of corroboration, the IJ must identify the specific corroboration sought, give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to obtain it, and consider any explanation for nonproduction.
- If the IJ provides notice and an opportunity, and the applicant neither produces the corroboration nor explains why it cannot be obtained, the IJ may deny relief because the applicant has not carried the burden of proof.

## Conclusion

In *Ren v. Holder*, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the IJ’s adverse credibility analysis but still denied the petition for review because the IJ gave Ren specific notice and time to obtain corroborating evidence, Ren produced none and offered no explanation, and the record therefore did not require a finding that he proved eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief.


Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (2011)