NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAI ZHANG,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71963

Agency No. A208-613-973

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 22, 2020**

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Haiming Zhang seeks review of the decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his 

applications of asylum and withholding of removal on adverse credibility grounds. 

He also challenges the BIA’s alternative holding that his claims fail even if he 

* 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

OCT 27 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

were deemed credible. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final 

orders of removal. We review for substantial evidence “denials of asylum [and] 

withholding of removal.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 

2017) (citation omitted). Factual findings, including adverse credibility 

determinations, will be upheld “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). We deny the petition.

“[T]o secure entry to the United States and to escape their persecutors, 

genuine refugees” may make false statements. Gulla v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 911, 

917 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

Otherwise, knowingly making false statements “always counts as substantial 

evidence supporting an adverse credibility finding.” Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 

1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision and 

provided its own analysis, the Court reviews both decisions. Flores-Lopez v. 

Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012).

Here, the IJ identified, and the BIA relied on, falsehoods in Zhang’s visa 

application, the implausibility of the circumstances surrounding his application, 

and the lack of corroboration. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (holding under the totality of the circumstances standard, an IJ may rely 
3

on inconsistencies and “any other relevant factor”). The IJ found no reason for the 

falsehoods of Zhang’s occupation and his wife’s name in his visa application, 

which was intended for vacation in the United States. The IJ found it implausible 

that Zhang applied for the visa around the same time that his father’s foot pain 

became more severe, because he was concerned about his father and supporting his 

family. The IJ found it implausible that Zhang discovered the falsehoods in his 

visa application right before his interview at the United States consulate and had no 

opportunity to fix them, and that he interviewed only because the agent who 

prepared his application threatened to fine him. The IJ also highlighted the 

insufficient corroboration from Zhang’s wife and the unnamed neighbor set to 

accompany him on vacation to the United States.

Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that the adverse 

credibility determination was erroneous. Thus, the petition for review is 

DENIED.

1

1 Because we hold that the BIA’s adverse credibility finding was supported by 

substantial evidence, we need not consider the BIA’s alternative holding, for which 

the BIA presumed that Zhang was credible. Separately, we may not consider 

Zhang’s argument that his corroborating evidence independently establishes his 

asylum claim because he did not exhaust this argument before the BIA. See 

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).