FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZHAOYANG CHEN, No. 15-73269 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-829-269 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 15, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and WU,*** District Judge. Petitioner Zhaoyang Chen seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying Ms. Chen’s applications for asylum, withholding of * 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 George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those facts necessary to decide the petition. “Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012)). We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, adverse credibility determinations are based on “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” including “the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” or “the consistency” of the applicant’s statements. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). “[T]he REAL ID Act requires a healthy measure of deference to agency credibility determinations” because immigration judges (IJs) “are in the best position to assess demeanor and other credibility cues that we cannot readily access on review,” id. at 1041, so long as 2 the IJ provides “a specific cogent reason for the adverse credibility finding.” Id. at 1042 (quoting Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2002)). The adverse credibility determination against Ms. Chen is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ detailed several specific reasons supporting an adverse credibility determination, including “discrepancies between [Ms. Chen’s] documents and herself,” “her demeanor and the way she testified,” conflicts between her testimony to the asylum officer and to the IJ, and “the lack of plausible or persuasive explanations” for the inconsistencies or failure to obtain certain documents. The IJ described several inconsistencies in both Ms. Chen’s documentation and testimony, including her testimony about two “diversely different birth control methods” before the asylum officer and the IJ, her changing testimony about her mother being sterilized, and her “generally . . . vague” testimony. Ms. Chen was unable to explain to the IJ why she apparently ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals