Yiqin Chen v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YIQIN CHEN, No. 16-72966
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-967-281
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: OWENS and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District
Judge.
Yiqin Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s
*
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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. “We
review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for
substantial evidence.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). As the
parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the
petition for review.
Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1064-65. The agency
determined that Chen was not credible because of numerous material
inconsistencies between Chen’s testimony and asylum application declaration.
Chen does not dispute that these inconsistencies exist, and he only argues that his
explanation—that the inconsistencies were the result of his faulty memory because
of the passage of time—is “plausible.”
However, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Chen’s faulty memory explanation was not reasonable. Although “the normal
limits of human understanding and memory may make some inconsistencies or
lack of recall present in any witness’s case,” the inconsistencies between Chen’s
testimony and declaration concerned significant discrepancies regarding material
details. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2010). For example,
despite being given numerous opportunities to clarify, Chen was inconsistent
regarding whether the land dispute protest occurred in 1996, shortly after the birth
2
of his son, or a decade later in 2006, shortly before he left China. Chen was also
inconsistent regarding whether he was physically abused while detained, how long
he was detained, and how often he was interrogated while detained.
Without credible testimony, substantial evidence supports that Chen has not
met his burden to demonstrate eligibility for relief. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d
1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3