Guan Zhu v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEP 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
GUAN YU ZHU, No. 17-72283
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-630-084
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and HILLMAN,*** District
Judge.
Guan Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ decision adopting the Immigration Judge’s denial of his
*
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 Timothy Hillman, United States District Judge for the
District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Reviewing the agency’s adverse credibility findings
for substantial evidence, see Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011),
we deny the petition for review.
Zhu’s claim for religious asylum stems from an alleged incident in which he
was arrested and detained by Chinese public security officials in May 2012. Zhu
testified that he had suffered from a fractured rib and sought medical treatment
after his release. However, Zhu’s asylum statement omitted any mention of
injuries or the need for medical attention, and, when asked during his asylum
interview about his injuries and the need for medical attention, Zhu did not
mention a fractured rib and said, “There were just some bruises on my hand and I
applied some ointment on my own.”1 The agency considered but was not
compelled to accept Zhu’s explanations for these omissions and inconsistencies.
See, e.g., Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming adverse
credibility determination based on material omissions in the asylum application
and finding the petitioner’s explanation “not persuasive enough to compel” a
different outcome, where the petitioner had explained that he felt it was “not
1
We reject Zhu’s contention that the asylum interview was not properly
admitted into evidence. See Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir.
2009).
2
necessary” to include those facts because they “would be discussed at the
hearing”).
The agency also permissibly concluded that Zhu offered implausible
testimony regarding his decision to leave China. Contrary to his testimony, the
agency concluded that Zhu intended to come to the United States to work, not to
study or to escape religious persecution as a result of the May 2012 incident, and
that he began the process of seeking entry to the United States before that incident.
Those findings were supported by substantial evidence. For example, to support
his claim that he decided to leave after the May 2012 incident, Zhu testified that he
applied to Oregon State University and sought an F-1 student visa in July or
August 2012. In finding this implausible, the agency noted, among other things,
that Zhu’s visa had already been verified by a university official on July 2, 2012.
See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding adverse
credibility determination where the agency found testimony implausible based on
documentary evidence in the record).
Zhu also testified that he was unaware of asylum until after he arrived in the
United States. In finding this representation implausible, the agency noted that,
within two weeks of his arrival, Zhu had already obtained notarized documents
through his parents in China and signed his asylum application. The agency was
3
not compelled to accept Zhu’s explanation that he obtained the notarized
documents for college, considering that Zhu never enrolled in school and went
directly to New York City to seek employment. See id.
Without credible testimony, Zhu failed to establish eligibility for asylum.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)–(iii) (outlining credibility criteria for asylum
applicants); Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Zhu has
waived review of the agency’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility
for withholding of removal or under the Convention Against Torture. See Smith v.
Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that arguments not raised in a
party’s opening brief generally are waived).
PETITION DENIED.
4