Yunqin Zheng v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 537 F. App'x 770 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUNQIN ZHENG, No. 11-72936
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-484-829
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Yunqin Zheng petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’
decision denying her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the
petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case,
we need not recount it here.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) adverse
credibility determination, which the Board adopted and affirmed. The IJ found
Zheng’s testimony that she worked forty-hour weeks inconsistent with her later
testimony that she worked seven days a week for eight or nine hours a day. Zheng
had two opportunities to explain this inconsistency but did not do so. Though
“trivial inconsistencies” cannot support an adverse credibility finding, Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010), this inconsistency about Zheng’s
hours was significant because much of Zheng’s testimony concerned her claim that
her work schedule prevented her from attending church more frequently.
Therefore, we deny the petition for review on the basis of this inconsistency
without opining on the sufficiency of the rest of the IJ’s reasons for finding Zheng
not credible. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (“we must
uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis is
supported by substantial evidence”).
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Zheng failed to
establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on evidence or testimony
independent of her own non-credible testimony. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d
1014, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION DENIED.
2