NO T F O R P UBLI CATI O N

UNI T E D S T A T E S COURT OF A P P E A L S

F OR T H E NI NT H CI RCUI T

GA NG L I

,

P eti ti o n er ,

v

.

WI L L I A M P

. B A RR, A ttor n ey Gen er al

,

Res pon d en

t. No. 18- 70083

A g en cy No. A 201- 001- 273

M E M O RA

NDUM *

On P eti ti on f or Rev i ew of

an Or der of th e B oar d of I m

m i g r ati on A ppeal s

S u bm i tted A u g u s t 13, 2020 * *

S an F r an ci s co, Cal i f

or n i a

B ef or e: H A WK

I NS an d CH RI S T E

N, Ci r cu i t J u d g es , an d GRI T Z NE R, * * * Di s tr i ct
J u dg e.

Gan g L i

, a n ati v e an d ci ti zen of Ch i n a, peti ti on s f or r ev i ew of th e B oar d of

I m m i g r ati on A ppeal s ’ deci s i on di s m

i s s i n g h i s appeal f

r om th e I m m i g r ati on J u dg e’ s 

# FI L E D

A UG 27 2020

M O LLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. COURT OF APPEAL S

* T h i s di s pos i ti on

i s n ot appr opr i ate f

o r p u bl i cati on an d i s n o t pr eceden t

ex cept as pr ov i ded by Ni n th Ci r cu i t Ru l e 36- 3.

* * T h e pan el u

n an i m ou s l y con cl u des th i s cas e i s s u i t abl e f o r d eci s i on wi t h ou t or al ar g u m en t. See F ed. R. A

pp. P

. 34( a) ( 2 )

.

* * * T h e H on or abl e J am es E

. Gr i tzn er , Un i ted S tates D i s t r i ct Ju dg e f

or th e S ou th er n Di s tr i ct of I o wa, s i tti n g by des i g n ati on

.or der den

y i n g as y l u

m , wi th h ol di n g of r em ov al

, an d r el i ef u n der th e Con

v en t i on

A g ai n s t T or

tu r e. We h av e ju

r i s di cti on pu

r su an t t o 8 U. S

. C. § 1252( a)

, an d we den y

th e p eti ti on

. 1

S u b s tan t i al ev i d en ce su

ppor ts th e I J ’ s adv er s e cr edi

bi l i ty deter

m i n ati o n

. R en

v. Holder

, 6 48 F

. 3d 1079, 1085 ( 9th Ci r

. 2 011)

. T h e I J f ou n d th at L i ’ s cr edi bi l i ty

was u n der m i n ed becau s e h e om

i tted key detai l s i n h i s i n i ti al decl ar ati on th at h e l ater

i n cl u ded i n h i s or al t es ti m on y

. See Silva-

P er eir a v. L

ynch

, 827 F

. 3d 1176, 1185

( 9 th Ci r

. 2 016)

. Cen

tr al to th e I J ’ s cr edi bi l i ty f i n d i n g , wh i ch th e B I A af

f i r m ed, was

th at L i ’ s tes ti m

on y al so added n ew al l eg ati on s th at “ s u bs tan ti al l y ch an g e[ d] th e

n atu r e of h i s cl ai m

. ” See id. H i s decl ar ati on s tated th at a f

am i l y pl an n i n g

com m i ttee of f i ci al r equ es ted th at h i s wi f e h av e an I UD pl aced, bu t h e t h en t es ti f i ed

th at th ey wer e of

f er ed t h e ch oi ce between s ter i l i zati on o r an I UD an d th at th e pol i ce

l ater th r eaten ed h i m wi th s ter i l i zati on i f h e h ad a s econ d ch i l d. A ddi ti on al l y , L i ’ s

tes ti m on y en h an ced th e detai l s of h i s r el eas e f r om deten ti on

. H i s decl ar ati o n s tated

on l y th at h e “ was r el eas ed, ” bu t h e tes ti f i ed th at h i s u

n cl e u s ed com

m u n i s t par ty

con n ecti on s an d br i ber

y to s ecu r e h i s r el eas e. H e f

u r th er tes ti f i ed th at h i s r el eas e

was con di ti on ed on

h i s r epor t i n g to th e pol i ce m

on th l y , per f or m i n g cl ean i n g ch or es ,

1 B ecau s e th e par

t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi th t

h e f acts

, we r eci te o n l y th os e f acts

n eces s ar y to deci de th e p eti ti on

.

2an d pr o m

i s i n g n ot to h av e a s econ d ch i l d; an d th at h e was l ater f i r ed af ter h i s

em pl oy er r ecei v ed ph on e cal l s f r om th e pol i ce i n f

o r m i n g th em of h i s “ con f

l i ct. ” L i

om i tted al l of th es e detai l s f

r om h i s decl ar ati on

. T h e B I A ag r eed wi t h th e I J th at

L i ’ s ex pl an ati on s f

or ex cl u di n g th es e “ cor e” al l eg ati on s

— n am el y , h i s wor

r y abou t

m aki n g th e decl ar ati on “ too l on g , ” h i s f ai l u r e to r eal i ze th e i m

por tan ce o f th es e

detai l s , an d h i s deci s i on to i n cl u de on l y “ th e t h i n g s wh i ch [ h e] th ou g h

t [ wer e]

tr u e”— wer e u n s ati s f actor y

. S ee R iz k v. Holder

, 629 F

. 3d 1083, 1 088 ( 9 th Ci r

.

2011) ( “ M ajor

i n con s i sten ci es on i ss u es m ater i al to t h e al i en ’ s cl ai m of per s ecu ti on

con s ti tu te s u b s tan ti al ev i den ce s u

ppor ti n g an adv er s e cr edi bi l i t

y deter m i n ati on

. ”)

.

H er e, L i f ai l ed to s h ow th at th e r ecor d com pel l ed a con

tr ar y con cl u s i on

. See id. at

1087–88.

I n l i g h t of th e ag en cy ’ s adv er s e cr edi bi l i ty deter m i n ati on , L i f

ai l ed t o m eet

h i s bu r den of es t abl i s h i n g el i g i bi l i ty f or as y l u m , wi th h ol d i n g of r em ov al

, an d

pr otecti on u

n d er CA T

. See Shr es tha v. Holder

, 5 90 F .3d 1034, 1048–49 ( 9th Ci r

.

2010)

.

P ETI TI O N DENI ED.

3