NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HONGLIN LIU, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72208 

Agency No. A206-851-801 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 8, 2020**

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: OWENS, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Honglin Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an order 

of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Liu 

* 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).

FILED

JUL 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

contends that he and his wife were harmed by the Chinese government’s 

enforcement of population control programs, including when his wife was forced 

to obtain an abortion in 1996 and then to be sterilized in 2001. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s1adverse credibility 

determination. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining 

that, in applying the substantial evidence standard, “[w]e reverse the BIA’s 

decision only if the petitioner’s evidence was ‘so compelling that no reasonable 

factfinder could find that he was not credible’” (quoting Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 

F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003))). The record supports the agency’s finding that 

Liu falsely stated on his asylum application that he had not served in the Chinese

military and failed to make a sufficiently timely correction to that application. See 

Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1163-67 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the IJ and 

BIA may “disbelieve a witness’s entire testimony if the witness makes a material 

and conscious falsehood in one aspect of his testimony”). The record also supports 

the agency’s finding that there were inconsistent and implausible aspects of Liu’s 

testimony about the date of his marriage, the date of his marriage registration, and 

1

“Where, as here, the [BIA] incorporates the IJ’s decision into its own 

without citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), this court will 

review the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated.” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 

F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). We refer to the BIA and the IJ collectively as 

“the agency.”
3 

the dates and process through which he obtained household registrations for his 

family members.

Because “we must uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination so long 

as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence,” and the evidence does not 

compel a conclusion contrary to the agency’s with respect to the grounds discussed 

above, we need not address the additional reasons the agency provided in support 

of its adverse credibility determination. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th 

Cir. 2011). And in the absence of Liu’s discredited testimony, Liu has not shown 

that he is entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. See 

Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).2

PETITION DENIED.

2 We need not address the Government’s argument that Liu’s petition for 

review is limited to challenging the agency’s denial of asylum, and that he 

therefore forfeited any challenges to the denial of withholding of removal and CAT 

protection. Liu’s petition for review urges us to overturn the agency’s adverse 

credibility determination. Because we reject Liu’s arguments for doing so, and 

because his withholding of removal and CAT claims depend on crediting his 

testimony, it is unnecessary for us to determine which claims would have been 

preserved if we had reached a different conclusion about credibility.