Yong Yang v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONG ZHONG YANG, No. 11-70260
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-401-457
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: IKUTA, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. “A
single supported ground for an adverse credibility finding is sufficient if it relates
to the basis for petitioner’s alleged fear of persecution and goes to the heart of the
*
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).
claim.” Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks and alteration omitted). Here, Yang claimed in his second asylum
application and in the merits hearing before the immigration judge that he was
persecuted (including being detained by the police and beaten for three days) based
on his Christian religion. Yet, Yang failed to allege any claim of religious
persecution during his initial airport interview, during his initial asylum interview
with an asylum officer, or in his first submitted asylum application. Yang instead
affirmatively denied having been mistreated or detained in China. This failure to
assert a claim of religious persecution in his initial proceedings was a significant
omission that was material to his claim of persecution and went to the heart of the
matter. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material
alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an
adverse credibility finding.”); see also Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th
Cir. 2010) (concluding omissions from asylum application of a political
demonstration and petitioners’ participation in it were significant where the
information was crucial to establishing persecution claim). Yang was confronted
with these omissions and the BIA reasonably rejected his explanation. See Rivera
v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007); cf. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d
1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). In the absence of credible testimony, Yang’s asylum
2
and withholding of removal claims fail. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).1
2. Yang’s application for protection under the Convention Against Torture also
fails because it is based on the same testimony found not credible, and he points to
no other evidence demonstrating it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1
Because we uphold the agency’s determination on this ground, we need not
address Yang’s claim that the BIA erred in noting the lack of corroborating
evidence.
3