Yongping Jin v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONGPING JIN, No. 17-72655
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-876-804
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 9, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,***
District Judge.
Yongping Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the
*
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 Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review adverse credibility
determinations and denials of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief for substantial
evidence. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the
petition for review.
Jin challenges the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. But substantial evidence supports each of the three grounds cited
by the BIA. First, the transcripts reveal inconsistent testimony about when Jin
reported to the Chinese police after a trip to Japan, and even if it is possible to
interpret this testimony as internally consistent, that interpretation is not
compelled. See Pedro-Mateo v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“Under the substantial evidence standard of review, the court of appeals must
affirm when it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the
evidence.”). Contrary to Jin’s contention, the BIA considered his explanation and
found it unpersuasive. See Munyuh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2021)
(explaining that the BIA need only “provide a specific and cogent reason for
rejecting” a petitioner’s “reasonable and plausible” explanation).
Second, Jin’s testimony contains inconsistencies and omissions related to a
2
bribe allegedly paid by his wife so that Jin could avoid reporting during his Japan
trip. The BIA did not err in finding that Jin admitted that the asylum officer had
asked him how he avoided reporting. See Pedro-Mateo, 224 F.3d at 1150. And
Jin’s argument that his testimony about the bribe merely added details, see Lai v.
Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2014), is unpersuasive. The bribe related
directly to Jin’s reporting requirements and occurred years earlier, contra id. at
972-74, and Jin first mentioned the bribe after cross-examination cast doubt on his
story.
Third, Jin’s testimony contains major inconsistencies about where he had
lived within the United States, and the BIA permissibly deemed his explanation
implausible. See Munyuh, 11 F.4th at 758. Overall, the BIA’s conclusion that the
totality of the circumstances justified the adverse credibility determination is
supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that, under the
REAL ID Act, inconsistencies do not need to go to the heart of a petitioner’s
claim).
Jin next argues that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, but
he predicates his arguments on his testimony being found credible. Without
credible testimony, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Jin has not
met his burden to demonstrate eligibility for relief. Jin also argues that he is
3
eligible for CAT protection, but the BIA’s conclusion that the documentary
evidence did not “establish[] that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
upon return to China” is supported by substantial evidence. The country reports
and the letter from Jin’s wife (which states that the police will “chastise” Jin if he
returns) do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Munyuh, 11 F.4th at 758.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4