NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHIKAI NI, No. 16-73218 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-888-683 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 17, 2022** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: D.M. FISHER,*** BENNETT, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Shikai Ni, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s * 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 D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. (“IJ”) denial of Ni’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on an adverse credibility determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. An adverse credibility determination by the BIA is reviewed for substantial evidence. See Singh-Kaur v. I.N.S., 183 F.3d 1147, 1149–50 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The court must uphold the BIA’s findings unless the evidence presented would compel a reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result. . . .”). Under the REAL ID Act, the trier of fact, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances . . . may base a credibility determination” on all relevant factors, including inconsistencies and an applicant’s demeanor. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). Review of the adverse credibility determination is limited to the grounds relied upon by the BIA. See Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2008). This Court “accord[s] the credibility determination special deference” if the IJ gives “specific and cogent reasons.” Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). “Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the [IJ’s] reasoning, we review both decisions.” Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s determination that Ni was not credible. For example, Ni testified on direct examination that he 2 attended an “underground” church in China without knowing that attendance was illegal. But on cross-examination, Ni conceded that he knew that his church was illegal when he joined it. Confronted with the discrepancy, Ni explained that he learned about the illegality of his church only after the police arrested him for attending that church. Ni also stated: “[W]e were [an] underground church and . . . we cannot go out to the public to spread the gospel, so I only told a few friend[s] of mine [to join the church].” But Ni conceded that he went to a local …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals