NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XUE RONG ZHANG, No. 20-71694 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-289-357 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, BUMATAY, Circuit Judge, and BAKER, *** International Trade Judge. Xue Rong Zhang petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) decision denying * 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 M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Zhang raised two grounds for relief before the BIA and in her petition for review: (1) a forced abortion claim; and (2) a religious persecution claim. We review denials of those claims for substantial evidence. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant in part, deny in part, and remand to the BIA. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of relief based on Zhang’s religious persecution claim. The BIA affirmed the denial of relief on adverse credibility grounds, which the record as a whole supports. See Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (holding that courts must review the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors in evaluating adverse credibility determinations). For example, Zhang inconsistently reported her divorce date. At a 2015 hearing, Zhang testified that she divorced in 2009, after arriving in the United States. But at a 2017 hearing, she testified that her husband divorced her in 2000 because she received an abortion. Further, Zhang’s testimony was inconsistent with her household registry, which indicated she was divorced in or before 1997. Additionally, substantial similarities between Zhang’s declaration and those of other applicants, including verbatim matches, undermine Zhang’s credibility. The BIA agreed with the IJ that Zhang’s purported use of a prepared template did not 2 adequately explain the similarities because her declaration contained the same grammatical errors as others’. Finally, the BIA rejected Zhang’s argument on appeal that she could have explained the similarities if allowed to confront the other applicants. That argument, the BIA said, was unpersuasive since the other declarations were created before Zhang’s.1 These inconsistencies sufficiently support the adverse credibility determination in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that inconsistencies “need not go to the heart of a petitioner’s claim” and even “minor inconsistencies that have a bearing on …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals