NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECHANG CUI, No. 18-72091 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-051-409 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and IMMERGUT,*** District Judge. Dechang Cui seeks review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of * 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 Karin J. Immergut, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and review for substantial evidence both the BIA’s adverse credibility determination and eligibility determination for asylum and withholding of removal. Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (asylum and withholding of removal); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility). Under the substantial evidence standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). And “only the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). When an IJ requests corroborative evidence in addition to the petitioner’s testimony, “such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). We deny the petition for review. 1. Adverse Credibility Adverse credibility findings must be based on “the totality of circumstances, and all relevant factors.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). We are deferential in our review because “IJs are in the best position to assess demeanor and other credibility cues.” Id. at 1041. “We must uphold an adverse credibility determination ‘so long as even one basis is supported 2 by substantial evidence.’” Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). a. Omissions “[A]n omission may form the basis for an adverse credibility finding.” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2014). “[O]missions that are not ‘details,’ but new allegations that tell a ‘much different—and more compelling—story of persecution than [the] initial application’” are particularly relevant to an adverse credibility determination. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011)). The BIA reviewed each omission and inconsistency identified by the IJ in this case. Cui’s application indicated he left China because of police-imposed limits to his personal freedom, but Cui later testified he left China ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals