NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZHEN SUN, No. 15-71642 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-213-687 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2023** Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Zhen Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition. Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, “we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). We review adverse credibility determinations and denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency’s determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). 1. Based on the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Sun testified that he was fired after and because of his arrest on February 20, 2011, contradicting his asylum application that indicated his employment ended in January 2011. This inconsistency calls into question his assertion that his employment ended in retaliation for his arrest. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). Moreover, Sun mentioned for the first time on cross examination that 2 he was terminated “[b]ecause of” his arrest and omitted that fact in both his declaration and his direct examination. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (“An adverse credibility determination may be supported by omissions that are not details, but new allegations that tell a much different—and more compelling—story of persecution than the initial application.” (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted)). The agency was permitted to reject his explanation for his omission. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that, even if the petitioner’s explanation was reasonable, “the IJ and Board were not compelled to accept [the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals