NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 8 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIJUN ZHAO, No. 17-72402 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-131-411 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 6, 2022** Portland, Oregon Before: EBEL,*** W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Lijun Zhao (“Zhao”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal 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 David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial 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. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility determinations and its denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the Petition. The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence in light of three “specific and cogent reasons” offered by the BIA. Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017). First, Zhao gave inconsistent testimony regarding the “timeframes and circumstances” underlying his allegations. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 749 (9th Cir. 2022). Although Zhao’s allegation that his wife was forced to undergo an abortion lies at the heart of his asylum claim, he gave inconsistent statements as to when he learned about the abortion. Given the significance of this event, the discrepancy in Zhao’s testimony calls into question the truthfulness of his account. See id. at 750. Similarly, although Zhao initially stated that he “hit[]” one of the family-planning officials at the hospital, he subsequently disavowed that assertion in his oral testimony, instead suggesting that he and the officials had merely pushed each other. While Zhao’s former statement describes a unilateral act of aggression that may have provided a legitimate (i.e., non-persecutory) basis 2 for his arrest and detention, see, e.g., Abedini v. INS, 971 F.2d 188, 191 (9th Cir. 1992), his latter statement suggests a mutual and less violent altercation. Because this inconsistency “went to the truthfulness of the circumstances surrounding [Zhao’s] arrest[],” it “go[es] to the heart of [his] claim for asylum,” Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 2010), and therefore “is of great weight,” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010). The IJ and BIA were not required to credit Zhao’s unpersuasive explanations for these two inconsistencies, see Cortez- Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010), which were sufficient to support the adverse credibility determination, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals