Zhang v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAHONG ZHANG; WENMIN HE, No. 22-138
Agency Nos.
Petitioners, A208-316-233
A208-316-234
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 6, 2023 **
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Yahong Zhang and her husband, Wenmin He, natives and citizens of
China, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Zhang’s lead applications for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reviewing for substantial evidence, Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2017), we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.
“We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, and must
uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Singh v. Holder,
643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011). Zhang first contends that the BIA
misconstrued the record in determining that she provided inconsistent testimony
about whether she was aware her visa application contained false information.
But Zhang’s testimony before the IJ was plainly inconsistent. When asked
whether she provided any false information in her visa application, Zhang
answered, “I don’t know,” but then later told the IJ that she knew about the false
information, including fake work history on the visa application. This
inconsistency casts doubt on Zhang’s credibility. See Singh, 643 F.3d at 1181.
Zhang also argues that the BIA erred in concluding that her voluntary
return to China after traveling to several other countries diminished her
credibility. Zhang alleges that she fears returning to China because of its family
planning policy. Zhang, however, voluntarily returned to China following trips
to several other countries even though she testified she was pregnant at the time.
The BIA reasonably concluded that this “cuts against [Zhang’s] credibility.”
Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008).
Zhang further argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s implausibility
finding about Zhang’s voluntary visit to a state-run hospital because it was based
on speculation. But substantial evidence supports the finding. Zhang testified
2 22-138
that she applied for asylum because she feared the government would discover
she was pregnant and force her to have an abortion, but she went to a government-
run hospital for an ultrasound to determine whether she was pregnant. Moreover,
the BIA was not required to accept Zhang’s explanation that she was unsure
whether an at-home test would be accurate. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961
(9th Cir. 2021) (holding that the BIA is not compelled to accept a petitioner’s
explanation even if the explanation is reasonable).
Lastly, Zhang contends the BIA misconstrued the record in determining
that Zhang’s documentary evidence undermined the credibility of her claim. But
Zhang admits that her uncle falsified at least one official state document she
submitted for the record. Contrary to Zhang’s assertions, the record does not
compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s.
Because the various inconsistencies and implausibilities identified by the
BIA constitute substantial evidence supporting the agency’s adverse credibility
determination and its determination that other record evidence did not satisfy
Zhang’s burden to establish eligibility for the relief she requested, we deny the
petition.
PETITION DENIED.
3 22-138