NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUA SANG, No. 20-70937 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-982-844 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 9, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Hua Sang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on an adverse credibility * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). finding. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence. Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007). “[T]he REAL ID act requires a healthy measure of deference to agency credibility [findings].” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. The REAL ID Act requires an IJ to consider the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors when evaluating a petitioner’s credibility. Id. at 1040, 1043. This allows an IJ to consider any inconsistency in the petitioner’s testimony. See id. at 1043. “[E]ven minor inconsistencies that [bear] on a petitioner’s veracity” can form the basis for an IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011). Trivial inconsistencies that “have no bearing on a petitioner’s veracity,” however, are insufficient to support an IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044. 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. First, Sang provided inconsistent answers regarding where his parents lived in China. Sang testified that his parents currently lived at 59 Dong Guan Street. But Sang then also testified that his parents currently lived at 152 Yuang Tai Street. Sang could not provide any reasonable explanation for his inconsistent testimony. The IJ did not err in relying on this inconsistency, which is pertinent because Sang testified that 2 Chinese police officers who had allegedly beat him later visited his parents’ home in China looking for him. Second, Sang’s declaration never mentioned him receiving any medical treatment when Chinese police officers allegedly beat him. Sang later told the IJ, however, that Chinese police officers beat him severely enough for a doctor to prescribe a two-day regimen of intravenous saline solution. Because evidence of medical treatment is probative of the presence, and degree, of past persecution, Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1214–15 (9th Cir. 2018), Sang’s testimony before the IJ presented a much more …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals