Chen v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 17, 2026
• Docket: 25-997
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUNKUN CHEN, No. 25-997 Agency No. Petitioner, A088-779-680 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 10, 2026** Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BYBEE, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Junkun Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s

(IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention

Against Torture (CAT) relief. 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Chen only challenges the agency’s adverse-credibility finding. We review the

reasons underlying this finding for substantial evidence. Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th

1148, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2021). “To reverse the BIA, we must determine that the

evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it.” Sanjaa v.

Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). Here, the

evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion thrice over.

First, “[w]hen applicants for immigration relief deliberately lie to immigration

authorities to secure an immigration benefit, it’s entirely reasonable for immigration

authorities to disbelieve their stories and deny their claims.” Ani v. Bondi, 155 F.4th

1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2025) (quotation omitted). It was reasonable to do so here.

While Chen’s 2008 application was prepared by an attorney later convicted of fraud,

Chen’s testimony revealed that he was aware his 2008 application “simplified” the

facts, and was misleading. Contrary to Chen’s position, the IJ focused on Chen’s

dishonesty—not his attorney’s. Moreover, Chen gave inconsistent answers about

whether he had lied in his 2008 application, despite the IJ’s repeated attempts to

clarify. That evidence supports an adverse-credibility finding.

Second, inconsistencies between a petitioner’s application and hearing

testimony can support an adverse-credibility finding. See Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th

1291, 1297 (9th Cir. 2022). Chen’s description in his application of interactions that

he had with Chinese police related to his religious practices does not match his

2 25-997 description of these events at his 2024 hearing testimony. Although Chen

acknowledged that his 2008 application included false information and attributed it

to his attorney making changes to the information that he provided, Chen certified

that the information in his application was true. The IJ did not err in refusing to

accept Chen’s explanation for the inconsistency in his statements. See Li v. Garland,

13 F.4th 954, 960–61 (9th Cir. 2021) (acknowledging that an IJ does not have to

accept an applicant’s explanation for a discrepancy).

Finally, an applicant’s demeanor, candor, or responsiveness is properly

considered in assessing his credibility. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Here, the IJ

found that Chen was evasive in taking responsibility for the deceptive application.

That finding supports an adverse credibility finding. Cf. Kalulu v. Bondi, 128 F.4th

1009, 1017 (9th Cir. 2024) (acknowledging the “special deference” owed to an IJ’s

finding of evasiveness).

In sum, the record establishes that substantial evidence supports the agency’s

adverse-credibility determination.1

PETITION DENIED.

1 To the extent Chen’s CAT claim could be supported by evidence other than his statements, Chen forfeits any challenge to the agency’s separate dispositive finding that he failed to prove that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of Chinese authorities if returned to China. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997–98 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that issues not discussed in the body of the opening brief are deemed abandoned).

3 25-997