Zhang v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 9, 2023
• Docket: 22-138
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YAHONG ZHANG; WENMIN HE, No. 22-138 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A208-316-233 A208-316-234 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 6, 2023 ** Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Yahong Zhang and her husband, Wenmin He, natives and citizens of

China, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Zhang’s lead applications for

asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Reviewing for substantial evidence, Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th

* 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). Cir. 2017), we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.

“We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, and must

uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Singh v. Holder,

643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011). Zhang first contends that the BIA

misconstrued the record in determining that she provided inconsistent testimony

about whether she was aware her visa application contained false information.

But Zhang’s testimony before the IJ was plainly inconsistent. When asked

whether she provided any false information in her visa application, Zhang

answered, “I don’t know,” but then later told the IJ that she knew about the false

information, including fake work history on the visa application. This

inconsistency casts doubt on Zhang’s credibility. See Singh, 643 F.3d at 1181.

Zhang also argues that the BIA erred in concluding that her voluntary

return to China after traveling to several other countries diminished her

credibility. Zhang alleges that she fears returning to China because of its family

planning policy. Zhang, however, voluntarily returned to China following trips

to several other countries even though she testified she was pregnant at the time.

The BIA reasonably concluded that this “cuts against [Zhang’s] credibility.”

Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008).

Zhang further argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s implausibility

finding about Zhang’s voluntary visit to a state-run hospital because it was based

on speculation. But substantial evidence supports the finding. Zhang testified

2 22-138 that she applied for asylum because she feared the government would discover

she was pregnant and force her to have an abortion, but she went to a government-

run hospital for an ultrasound to determine whether she was pregnant. Moreover,

the BIA was not required to accept Zhang’s explanation that she was unsure

whether an at-home test would be accurate. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961

(9th Cir. 2021) (holding that the BIA is not compelled to accept a petitioner’s

explanation even if the explanation is reasonable).

Lastly, Zhang contends the BIA misconstrued the record in determining

that Zhang’s documentary evidence undermined the credibility of her claim. But

Zhang admits that her uncle falsified at least one official state document she

submitted for the record. Contrary to Zhang’s assertions, the record does not

compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s.

Because the various inconsistencies and implausibilities identified by the

BIA constitute substantial evidence supporting the agency’s adverse credibility

determination and its determination that other record evidence did not satisfy

Zhang’s burden to establish eligibility for the relief she requested, we deny the

petition.

PETITION DENIED.

3 22-138