N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JINC HENG LIU, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-72816 Age n c y No. A088-107-046 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 August 13, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s . Jinc he ng Liu pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l , a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED AUG 15 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).§ 1252. W e de ny the pe tition in pa rt, gra n t in pa rt, a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de te rm ination that Liu’ s c la im

re ga rding C hina ’ s c oe rc ive popula t ion c ontrol polic y

wa s not c re d ible
. The B IA a ffirm e d this de te rm ination ba se d on Liu’ s om ission from his a sy lum a pplic a tion of his wife ’ s forc e d a bortion a nd the thre at of ste riliz ation dire c te d at him . Unde r the REAL ID Ac t, “ a ny ina c c ura c i e s, om issions of de ta il, or inc onsiste nc ie s found by the IJ, re ga rdle s s of whe the r the y

go to the ‘ he art’ of a pe titione r’ s c la im , m a

y support a

n a dve rse c re dibility

finding.” Tamang v
. Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1093 (9th C ir. 2010) (c i tation omitte d). Liu’ s om ission of fa c ts pivota l to his c la im

wa s signific ant a

nd is suffic ie nt to support a n a dve rse c re d ibility

finding. Se e

, e . g. , K in v . Holde r , 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th C ir. 2010) (upholding a dve rse c re dibility finding whe re pe titione rs om i tte d from the ir a sy lum a pplic a tion a

ny m e n tion of the ir pa

rtic ipation in a

de m onstra

t ion tha t wa s the e ntire ba sis for the ir politic a l a sy lum c la i m ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm inat ion tha t Liu did not e sta blish tha t he wa s e ligiblefor prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c ). Liu’ s due proc e ss c l a im

is without me rit a

nd is not supporte d by

the re c ord. 2The a ge n c y ’ s finding tha t Liu did not suffe

r pa st pe rse c ution be c a

use of his re ligious be lie fs is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The IJ e xpre ssly found Liu c re dible on this c l a im , but de te rm i ne d tha t Liu’ s m istre atm e nt by

the polic e did not rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. TheIJ m isre a d Guo v . Ashc roft , 361 F.3d 1194 (9th C ir. 2004). Although the pe titione r in tha

t c a se fa c e d re pe ate d m istre atm e nt by the polic e , we he ld tha

t e a c h insta

nc e of m istre atm e nt indepe nde ntly rose to the le ve l of pa st pe rse c ution. Id. at 1203; se e also Mihale v v . Ashc roft , 388 F.3d 722, 729 (9th C i r. 2004). Liu’ s arre st, de te ntion, interrogat ion, a nd phy sic a l a

buse at the h ands of the polic e rose to or surpa sse d the le ve l of wha t Guo fa c e d in his first insta nc e of m istre atm e n t . Se e Guo , 361 F.3d a t 1203; se e also Quan v . Gonzale s , 428 F.3d 883, 888-89 (9th C ir. 2005)
. Liu’ s situa t ion is distinguisha

ble from tha t of the pe titione r in Gu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014 (9th C ir. 2006), on whic h both the IJ a nd B IA re lie d. UnlikeGu, Liu re c e ive d m e dic a l tre atm e nt for the injurie s inflic te d by

the polic e an d lost his job a s a re sult of theinc ide nt. Se e id. at 1020- 21. In a ddition, Liu wa s de ta ine d for longe r tha n both Guo (in his first de t e ntion) and Gu. Se e id. at 1018; Guo , 361 F.3d a t 1203. B e c a use the re c ord c o m

pe ls a c onc lusion tha

t Liu wa s subje c te d to pa st pe rse c ution, were m and this m a tte r to the a g e nc y for a de te rm ination of whe the r

3the g ove rnm e nt c a n re but the pre sum

ption tha t Liu ha s a

n obje c tive ly

we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 208.13(b)(1). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; and RE M A NDE D. Ea c h pa

rty sha ll pa y its own c osts on a

ppe a l.

4