N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LI HUA HE, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-70685 Age n c y No. A202-075-270
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 13, 2019 ** Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd C ALLAHAN a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . 

# F IL ED J UN 17 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pe titione r Li Hua He se e ks re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de nia l of his a

p plic ation for a sy l um . 1 W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a), a

nd we de ny

the pe tition. 1. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the Im m igrat ion Judge ’ s a

nd the B IA’ s
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion. Se e Singh v . Gonzale s , 491 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th C ir. 2007). Pe titione r He de sc ribe d a

n e x tra ordina

ry se rie s of e ve nts re late d

to his wife ’ s two pre gna

nc ie s, but m

uc h of his story

wa s im pla usible or inc onsiste nt. For
e xam ple , during his wife ’ s first pre gna n c y , He c la im s tha

t twe nty -e ight gove rnm e nt offic ia ls a

ppe are d without wa

rning a t his hom e , be at him se ve re ly , a bduc te d his wife , a

nd forc e d he r to unde rgo a late -te rm a bortion a t a c linic . B ut He ha d diffic ulty re m e m

be ring c e rta in de ta ils tha

t se e m unlike ly to be forgotte n,
suc h a s how fa

r a long his wife ’ s pre gna

nc y wa s whe n she wa s a

bduc te d by

the gove rnm e nt a

nd how long the

gove rnm e nt he ld he r be fore c onta c ting him . And de spite the forc e d a

bortion a nd a ggre ssive show of forc e , He ’ s wife wa s re l e a se d without a ny instruc tion, wa

rning, or m onitoring from gove rnm e nt fam ily pla nning offic ia ls. He a lso c l a im s tha t he and his wifespe nt he r se c o nd pre gna nc y in hiding

1 He pre viously ra ise d c la im s for withholding of re m ova l a nd for prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture , but he withdre w those c la im s at his he aring. 2from

gove rnm e nt offic ia ls. Ye t He ’ s wife gav e birth in a gove rnm e nt hospital a fte r He le ft he r a

we e k e arlie r to c om e to the Unite d State s. And He ’ s tim e line for his wife ’ s se c ond pre gna

n c y is som e what im

pla usible , a s it pla c e s the birth of his da ughte r in August 2014, a

bout 10 m onths a fte r his wifele a rne d she wa s pre gna

nt in Oc tobe r 2013. 2 The re c ord be fore us doe s not c om pe l a finding tha

t He wa s c re dible , a

nd the Im m i gration Judgeand the B IA a ppropria te l y found tha

t He ’ s te stim ony

wa s not be lie va ble
. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii); W a ng v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1007–08 (9th C ir. 2017). Hethe re fore fa ile d to show tha

t he ha s a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution. Se e W a ng , 861 F.3d a

t 1009. 2. Pe titione r He wa s not de nie d his right to due proc e ss during the proc e e dings be fore the Im m igration Judgeand the B IA. He wa s a fforde d a n
a de quate opportunity

to pre se nt his c a s e , but sim ply fa ile d to pe rsua s ive ly

e xpla in the i nc onsiste nc ie s a

nd disc re pa

nc ie s in his te stim ony . Se e Lara-Torre s v . Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 968, 973-74 (9th C ir. 2004). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

2 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, we do not re c ount the m in de ta il he re , nor do we provide an e xha ustive list of theinc o nsiste nt a nd inc re dible a spe c ts of He ’ s te stim ony . 3