NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUNKAI WANG, No. 15-73130 Wang, Agency No. A201-046-626 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: R. NELSON and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and SCHREIER,*** District Judge. Junkai Wang, a citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial * 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 Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal,” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), and deny the petition. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). This means that for us “to reverse such a finding we must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. (cleaned up). “In assessing an adverse credibility finding . . . we must look to the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, ___ F.4th ___, No. 19-72744, 2021 WL 4075331, at *5 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (cleaned up). Wang admits that he lied under oath when he first claimed to have lived in New York for “around five days,” before later conceding, when confronted with contrary evidence, that he lived there “three to four months.” His only explanation for his dishonesty was that his prior counsel instructed him to lie. The IJ noticed that Wang appeared to have a different demeanor when he lied. For example, when asked “a question about New York, [Wang would] turn [his] head and pull [his] ear.” See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (“an IJ may base an adverse credibility determination on the demeanor . . . of the applicant” 2 and the “IJs are in the best position to assess demeanor and other credibility cues that we cannot readily access on review” (cleaned up)). The IJ found this to be a material misstatement under oath because this could represent forum shopping and impact which immigration judge heard Wang’s petition. And “even minor inconsistencies going to the heart of a petitioner’s claim may, when considered collectively, deprive the claim of the requisite ring of truth.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). Wang also provided conflicting …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals