NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT QING ZHANG, No. 20-72299 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-753-756 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** Pasadena, California Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** District Judge. Qing Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”), petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) * 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 Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Zhang’s petition to remove the conditions on her residence, under 8 C.F.R. § 216.4. Because the BIA cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A. 1994), and provided its own review of the evidence and law, we review the decisions of both the BIA and IJ. Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Fermin v. Barr, 141 S. Ct. 664 (2020). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). We also review for substantial evidence whether a petitioner “entered into [a] qualifying marriage in good faith.” Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review. In removal proceedings, “the totality of the circumstances” is relevant to a credibility determination, including consistency between the petitioner’s statements and other evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(C); Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). IJs must examine the record as a whole, citing “specific instances in the record that form the basis of the adverse credibility finding,” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2010), and considering any inconsistencies in light of all the evidence presented, see Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 790-91 (9th Cir. 2014). 2 The IJ found, and the BIA agreed, that neither Zhang nor her U.S. citizen husband, Kevin Harold, was a credible witness. In making these determinations, the IJ properly considered the totality of the circumstances, see Alam, 11 F.4th at 1135, and cited specific examples supporting the adverse credibility finding, see Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1093-94. As the IJ noted, the record is replete with moments when Zhang and Harold gave contradictory answers about their personal lives, did not know fundamental information about one another—including, for example, whether Zhang had children—and apparently attempted to conceal Zhang’s ongoing relationship with her first husband. These numerous and significant inconsistencies throughout the record provide substantial …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals