NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 24 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONGFANG WANG, No. 17-72237 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-896-713 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 11, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, COOK,*** and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Rongfang Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, * 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 Deborah L. Cook, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. We uphold an adverse credibility determination so long as at least one ground is supported by substantial evidence. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). The agency must “provide specific and cogent reasons in support of an adverse credibility determination” and must consider “the petitioner’s explanation” along with “other record evidence that sheds light on whether there is in fact an inconsistency at all.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009)). Wang testified that she feared for her safety if she returned to China because she had been targeted by the police for organizing protests against the government after her home was demolished. But the BIA properly noted a meaningful inconsistency between Wang’s testimony and her supporting documentation: many of the documents she submitted, including her household registration and ID card, identified her old home as her address even after the date she claims her home was demolished. This discrepancy is not trivial but instead goes to the heart of Wang’s asylum claim. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046–47 (explaining that inconsistency at the heart of a claim carries great weight). Wang was given an opportunity to 2 explain this inconsistency, see Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2014), and attempted to do so by testifying that the nature and costs of the household registration system prevented her address from being changed within the system unless she took certain actions, such as purchasing property or paying to get the address changed. Because Wang’s explanation was unsupported by the record, the IJ requested additional corroboration, such as background evidence or laws regarding the registration system. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the IJ is not required to accept even “plausible” explanations ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals