NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIE ZHANG, No. 15-72407 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-848-639 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Jie Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum and * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Zhang’s petition. Zhang argues that the BIA erred in upholding the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). “The agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Silva- Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on three instances of implausible testimony and several instances of inconsistent testimony. First, the IJ found it implausible that Chinese authorities would have denied Zhang’s request to have a second child, citing a 2013 Human Rights Report on China indicating that “the death of the first child generally allows the parents to receive another birth permit,” and the fact that Zhang had never provided a reasonable explanation for the alleged denial. Second, given Zhang’s testimony that he had been beaten at the public security bureau and threatened with sterilization if he continued to cause problems at the Family Planning Office (“FPO”), the IJ found Zhang’s testimony that he subsequently and repeatedly returned to the FPO requesting a birth permit to be implausible. Third, the IJ did 2 not find Zhang’s testimony that he came to the United States to have more children with his wife plausible given that Zhang’s wife has never joined him in the United States. The IJ also noted discrepancies between Zhang’s testimony regarding the dates during which he and his wife lived at a particular residence and the Chinese household register data. In addition, there were inconsistencies in the record about when Zhang’s wife found out she was pregnant with a second child, who informed the FPO of the second pregnancy, and when they informed the FPO. The IJ pointed out there was also a discrepancy regarding the date on which a supervisor at the FPO spoke with Zhang about the forced abortion procedure that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals