NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2022 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS GUOLIANG LIU, No. 16-72479 Petitioner-Appellant, Agency No. A205-778-517 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent-Appellee. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge.*** Guoliang Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the 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 that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review. When “the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findings of the Immigration Judge while adding its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Factual findings are upheld “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)). “[A]n adverse credibility determination must be made after considering ‘the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010), including, “the consistency between . . . written and oral statements . . . the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements,” regardless of whether they “go[] to the heart of the applicant’s claim,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e need not consider whether an inconsistency identified by the IJ or Board is central [to the petitioner’s claim].”). The “IJ’s observations about demeanor” are entitled to “special deference.” Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1155 (9th Cir. 2021). 2 The BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on Liu’s inconsistent testimony, demeanor, and admission “that he had submitted false documents, concerning his marital status, assets and occupation, to the U.S. Consulate to facilitate obtaining his visa, and made misrepresentations during his visa interview.” The IJ and BIA identified specific moments in the hearing when Liu was “extremely nervous” and his testimony seemed “memorized.” The BIA noted that Liu testified inconsistently about whether he was beaten by police while in custody in China, and that the IJ reasonably found unpersuasive Liu’s explanation for the discrepancy between his testimony that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals