Yongbin Zou v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONGBIN ZOU, No. 15-71431
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-487-413
v.
WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW,***
District Judge.
Yongbin Zou petitions for review of the judgment of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal after an Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) denied his petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
*
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 Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
the Convention Against Torture, based on an adverse credibility finding. “We
review adverse credibility findings under the substantial evidence standard.”
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence
requires “only such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (2014)
(internal citations omitted). Our task is solely to determine whether substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s findings. See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 974-75
(9th Cir. 2015)
“Because credibility determinations are findings of fact by the IJ, they ‘are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.’” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000)). “To reverse such a finding, we must find that the
evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. (internal
citations and punctuation marks omitted). In other words, “we must uphold the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination so long as one of the identified grounds is
supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the alien’s claim of
persecution.’” Id. (internal citations and punctuation marks omitted).
Further, where, as here, the BIA reviews the IJ’s decision for clear error and
relies on the IJ’s opinion as a statement of reasons, we “look to the IJ’s oral
decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion.” Tekle v. Mukasey,
2
533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). In so doing, we review the reasons explicitly
identified by the BIA and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral
decision in support of those reasons. Id. We deny the petition.
The BIA made several findings with respect to Zou’s credibility that are
supported by substantial evidence. Particularly, we find the following to be
supported: (1) the implausibility of a small clinic in China providing a CAT scan
but not paperwork evidencing treatment; (2) the implausibility of Zou escaping his
home town and making it past airport security while under strict surveillance; and
(3) contradictory testimony regarding whether Zou told his minister he had been a
practicing Christian in China.
These findings may have alternative explanations, but the evidence does not
compel a conclusion that Zou was credible on these points. Moreover, the IJ noted
at the close of the first hearing day that “there are serious questions regarding
credibility in this case, . . . [s]o if you have any other documents, you want to
submit, please get them to this Court at least 10 days prior.” Zou submitted no
further documents. Even though some of the IJ’s additional findings may not be
supported by substantial evidence, we find that at least “one of the identified
grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [Zou’s] claim
of persecution” for being a practicing Christian in China. Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1087.
Thus, the BIA did not err in dismissing Zou’s appeal.
3
DENIED.
4