NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS YE LIU, No. 20-71124 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-334-495 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 14, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS,*** District Judge. Ye Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. The agency provided “specific and cogent reasons in support of [its] adverse credibility determination,” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Adverse credibility determinations are reviewed under the same substantial evidence standard as findings of fact.”). In particular, the agency noted that Liu’s testimony about the impact of his alleged beating by Chinese authorities, and the treatment he received as a result, was internally inconsistent and contrary to the hospital record that he submitted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (inconsistencies may support an adverse credibility finding). Liu testified at the December 27, 2017 hearing that he had not experienced any nausea or vomiting as a result of the police beating, but the hospital record submitted by Liu listed “mild nausea, vomiting” as a symptom. When asked to explain the discrepancy at a subsequent March 29, 2018 hearing, Liu at first stated that his prior denial of nausea and vomiting was due to his understanding that the question “referred to the time when [he] was in the interrogation room” where the beating took place. But shortly thereafter Liu 2 testified that he did have nausea and vomiting in the interrogation room, and after that he ultimately stated that the events were too long ago for him to remember these details. The agency also noted that, when asked at the December 27, 2017 hearing to list the medical treatment he received, Liu failed to mention receiving stiches for a cut on his arm, even though he had claimed at an …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals