NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MING KANG, No. 16-73976 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-848-848 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 5, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,*** District Judge. Ming Kang (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) * 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). *** The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. denial of Petitioner’s asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) petitions on adverse credibility grounds. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. 1. Petitioner contends that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Factual determinations are upheld “if supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence on the record as a whole.” Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1161, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010)). To reverse an adverse credibility finding, the court “must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)) (alteration and emphases omitted). Credibility determinations must take into account the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, and must be supported by “specific and cogent reasons.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009)). The BIA identified inconsistencies between Petitioner’s live testimony and his written statement, between Petitioner’s live testimony and his father’s letter, and between Petitioner’s live testimony and the information Petitioner gave to the Asylum Officer. The BIA noted inconsistencies in the number and nature of police 2 beatings Petitioner allegedly suffered during his detention. Petitioner’s alleged history of beatings by police was material to Petitioner’s asylum application. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). The BIA also noted discrepancies regarding the medical treatment Petitioner allegedly received after his release from detention and regarding Petitioner’s living situation at the time of his arrest. Petitioner testified that his father, after bailing Petitioner out of jail, took him to a clinic to receive treatment. However, Petitioner’s father stated in his supporting letter that he took Petitioner home after bailing Petitioner out. Petitioner also testified that he received …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals