Hai Zhang v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
OCT 27 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAI ZHANG, No. 19-71963
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-613-973
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2020**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Haiming Zhang seeks review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his
applications of asylum and withholding of removal on adverse credibility grounds.
He also challenges the BIA’s alternative holding that his claims fail even if he
*
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).
were deemed credible. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final
orders of removal. We review for substantial evidence “denials of asylum [and]
withholding of removal.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir.
2017) (citation omitted). Factual findings, including adverse credibility
determinations, will be upheld “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th
Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). We deny the petition.
“[T]o secure entry to the United States and to escape their persecutors,
genuine refugees” may make false statements. Gulla v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 911,
917 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Otherwise, knowingly making false statements “always counts as substantial
evidence supporting an adverse credibility finding.” Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d
1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision and
provided its own analysis, the Court reviews both decisions. Flores-Lopez v.
Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012).
Here, the IJ identified, and the BIA relied on, falsehoods in Zhang’s visa
application, the implausibility of the circumstances surrounding his application,
and the lack of corroboration. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th
Cir. 2010) (holding under the totality of the circumstances standard, an IJ may rely
2
on inconsistencies and “any other relevant factor”). The IJ found no reason for the
falsehoods of Zhang’s occupation and his wife’s name in his visa application,
which was intended for vacation in the United States. The IJ found it implausible
that Zhang applied for the visa around the same time that his father’s foot pain
became more severe, because he was concerned about his father and supporting his
family. The IJ found it implausible that Zhang discovered the falsehoods in his
visa application right before his interview at the United States consulate and had no
opportunity to fix them, and that he interviewed only because the agent who
prepared his application threatened to fine him. The IJ also highlighted the
insufficient corroboration from Zhang’s wife and the unnamed neighbor set to
accompany him on vacation to the United States.
Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that the adverse
credibility determination was erroneous. Thus, the petition for review is
DENIED.1
1
Because we hold that the BIA’s adverse credibility finding was supported by
substantial evidence, we need not consider the BIA’s alternative holding, for which
the BIA presumed that Zhang was credible. Separately, we may not consider
Zhang’s argument that his corroborating evidence independently establishes his
asylum claim because he did not exhaust this argument before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
3