NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS YUHUA ZHU, No. 16-71118 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-722-401 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON,*** District Judge. * 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 Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. Yuhua Zhu is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. After Zhu overstayed his visa, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application for asylum, withholding, and protection under CAT, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Now, Zhu timely petitions on three grounds.1 First, Zhu argues that his testimony was plausible and consistent because the IJ failed to consider Zhu’s explanation for an alleged inconsistency. Second, he asserts that his demeanor did not demonstrate that he lacked credibility. Finally, Zhu contends that, as he was otherwise credible, the IJ failed to apply the notice and explanation requirements of Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1090–93 (9th Cir. 2011), when determining that he had failed to corroborate his claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny his petition. Where the BIA affirms the IJ while citing its decision in Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), and adding its own analysis, we review the factual findings of the IJ and BIA for substantial evidence. See Bondarenko v. Holder, 733 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2013); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). Under this standard, we must uphold the findings unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 1 Zhu does not appeal the denial of his CAT claims here. 2 (1992). When applying this standard of review, we may not re-weigh the evidence, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018–19 (9th Cir. 2006), and may only reverse if no reasonable fact-finder could have reached the agency’s conclusion, Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481. “[O]nly the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning [the agency’s] adverse credibility determination,” as long as the IJ has provided specific and cogent reasons for finding the applicant not credible. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)). The IJ supported the adverse credibility determination with substantial evidence. First, the IJ identified five inconsistencies between Zhu’s testimony, his written declaration, and his accompanying documentation. Zhu challenges only one of these inconsistencies, waiving the other …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals