FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 9 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEI CHEN, No. 18-72617 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-045-055 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 4, 2020** Portland, Oregon Before: FERNANDEZ and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS,*** District Judge. Petitioner, Lei Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his * 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 Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum,1 withholding of removal,2 and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)3 relief. We deny the petition. The BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum must be upheld “if ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record.’” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992). “It can be reversed only if the evidence presented . . . was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” Id.; see also Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). That same standard applies to adverse credibility determinations. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record and we are satisfied that the BIA’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination that Chen was not credible, based on numerous inconsistencies between Chen’s testimony and the asylum officer’s notes from Chen’s Credible 1 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). 2 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). 3 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18. 2 Fear Interview.4 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). These inconsistencies directly bore on the seriousness of Chen’s claimed fear of persecution, and the IJ provided clear reasons for rejecting Chen’s explanations for each inconsistency. See Silva- Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185–86 (9th Cir. 2016); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043–44. For example, his story regarding the massage parlor incident that precipitated his leaving China was significantly changed and embellished when he testified before the IJ. See Silva-Pereira, 827 F.3d at 1185–86. Moreover, the corroborating evidence he submitted was not sufficient to rehabilitate his credibility. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). The IJ also reasonably concluded that Chen’s voluntary return to China undermined his claim that he feared persecution. Loho v. Mukasey, 531 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals