NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HEYI SHAO, No. 15-72808 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-893-002 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 22, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Heyi Shao, a Chinese national, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal based on an adverse credibility finding. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal issued by the BIA. We * 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). review BIA denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). This court recently replaced the “single factor” test for adverse credibility determinations with a totality of the circumstances test. Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Therefore, we apply a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether the IJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. See id. We deny the petition. Shao claims that he was introduced to Christianity in China after his divorce in 2006 and then arrested and detained on June 22, 2008, for organizing and attending a house church gathering. Upon his release, Chinese authorities closed the restaurant Shao owned and revoked his business license. Shao entered the United States on a B-1 visa in 2008. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture on January 2, 2009. An IJ denied his application based on his “insincere” and “materially inconsistent” testimony on September 26, 2013. Shao appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, which dismissed Shao’s appeal based on a series of inconsistencies in Shao’s testimony on August 11, 2015. When reviewing BIA decisions, we “consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency,” Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) 2 (citation omitted), and may not affirm upon grounds the BIA did not rely upon itself, Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). We conclude that the BIA decision was supported by substantial evidence. 1. When testifying before the IJ about a restaurant he owned in China, Shao stated that he opened it in China in 1992. But in his asylum application, Shao stated that he opened the restaurant in 1999. When Shao was confronted with this discrepancy, he replied that the restaurant was “not really full-fledged” until 1999. Shao argues that he was not provided a “reasonable opportunity to offer an explanation of [the] perceived inconsistencies that form[ed] …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals