CA2 on Evidence, Persecution: Huang v. Holder (Unpub.)

"The agency’s finding that Huang did not meet his burden of proof because he failed to submit corroborating evidence is not supported by substantial evidence. Although the agency identified what evidence should have been obtained and why such evidence was required, it neither explained why it believed the evidence was reasonably available, nor evaluated Huang’s explanations for his failure to provide such evidence, including that he had not made a copy of his handwritten letter. ... The agency’s finding that Huang did not suffer past persecution also requires remand. The IJ gave improper weight to its determination that Huang’s resistance to the family planning policies in China was not undertaken as part of a group, or done publicly. ... Remand is therefore appropriate to determine whether the agency correctly placed the burden on Huang as to his fear of future persecution in China and, if not, whether the government can establish that any such fears were not well-founded. We note that Huang’s peaceful presence in China subsequent to his arrest is not enough, in itself, to rebut the presumption that fear of future persecution is well-founded." - Huang v. Holder, Aug. 1, 2013, unpub.  [Hats off to Donglai Yang!]