NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YONGJIE LI, No. 19-71418 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-205-238 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 4, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,** District Judge. Yongjie Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019). Factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Li filed his application after May 11, 2005, so his case is governed by the REAL ID Act’s standards regarding adverse credibility findings. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). An adverse credibility determination is made under “the totality of the circumstances,” and may be based on “any” inconsistency or falsehood regardless of whether it “goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Credibility findings must be upheld “so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2011). The BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. Li’s testimony before the IJ was, in several of the instances cited by the BIA, inconsistent with his prior statements or other documentary evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). For example, Li’s asylum application said that he was married and had a child at the time of the ceremony where he converted to Tibetan Buddhism, an event that had great personal significance to him. In testimony at the hearing, however, Li said he was single when the ceremony took place, and that no family attended. Li also testified that he received sutures for wounds he 2 19-71418 suffered in prison, but the medical records he submitted make no mention of sutures. The BIA and IJ did not have to accept Li’s explanations for these inconsistencies, namely that he was nervous at the hearing. See Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). Li did not present any evidence that would compel a finding that he suffered persecution in the past, or that he has an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2009). Li testified that he suffered an incident of persecution …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals