Yan Sang v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAN JUN SANG, No. 16-71172
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-908-195
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 2, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: BALDOCK,*** WARDLAW, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Yan Jun Sang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
*
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 Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ did not clearly
err in making its adverse credibility finding. The IJ provided five “specific and
cogent reason[s],” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010),
supporting its determination that Sang was not credible: (1) Sang repeated the
same phrases in response to questioning, suggesting he was regurgitating a
memorized statement; (2) Sang’s oral testimony conflicted with his written
declaration, and both were also plagued by internal inconsistences1; (3) Sang
provided no documentary evidence, such as affidavits or declarations from
relatives or fellow church members2; (4) Sang’s claimed fear of future persecution
was undermined by his admission that he voluntarily returned to China twice
following trips to Japan and the United States; and (5) Sang’s demeanor and
1
For example, Sang provided at least three different dates that he claimed to
have been first introduced to Christianity. In his written declaration, Sang attests
that a friend “led him to the Church of San Francisco” after arriving in the United
States in 2009 because he was “depressed” and “unhappy.” On direct examination,
however, Sang testified that he first joined the Christian church in July 2013. Even
still, on cross examination, Sang testified that he began “spread[ing] Gospel” in
China in 2007. When asked about these conflicting dates, Sang could not provide
a cogent explanation.
2
Sang did provide copies of undated photos from his baptism, which had
purportedly taken place two days before his hearing before the IJ.
2
nonresponsive testimony also undermined his credibility. When confronted with
discrepancies, he “hesitated,” “rock[ed] back and forth,” and “simply recit[ed]
what was already in his declaration or what he previously stated.”
We “must uphold an adverse credibility determination ‘so long as even one
basis is supported by substantial evidence.’” Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842
(9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011)).
Here, the IJ’s cited reasons afford ample support for the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, upon which the BIA relied. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261,
1265 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
Given Sang’s glaring credibility issues, substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s conclusion that Sang did not demonstrate his eligibility for withholding of
removal or relief under the CAT.3 See id.; Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915,
922–23 (9th Cir. 2006).
DENIED.
3
On appeal, Sang argues that the “BIA erred in denying [his] application for
asylum.” However, Sang failed to challenge before the BIA the IJ’s determination
that he was statutorily barred from applying for asylum. Thus the claim is deemed
waived, and we need not address it here.
3