NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 a nd withholding of removal on adverse credibility grounds. He also challenges the BIA’s alternative h olding 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 APPEALS2

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
117 8, 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 Z hang’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 r ely3

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 applicatio n, which was intended for vacation in the United States. The IJ found it implausible
that Z hang 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 ri ght before his interview at the United States consulate and had no opportunity to fix them, a nd that he interviewed only because t he 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, t he 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 alte rnative holding, for which the BIA presumed that Zhang was credible. Separately, w e 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).