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

e sponde n t . No. 10-70985 Age n c y No. A096-060-628 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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ADELM AN, Distric t Judge . ** Pe titione r Yingc hun Zha

ng, a native and c itiz e n of the Pe o ple ’ s R e public of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of a fina l orde r of re m ova l issue d by the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. 

# FIL ED MAR 12 2014 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 Honora

ble Ly nn S. Ade lm an , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W isc onsin, sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r c onc e de s tha t she is re m ova

b le but se e ks re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of he r a

pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l a nd prote c t ion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). Pe titione r c l a im s she will be pe rse c ute d on a c c o unt of he r re ligion if she is se nt ba c k

to C hina . She is a C hristia n, a nd she re lie d prim arily

on he r own te stim ony

to prove he r pe rse c ution c la im . The im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) de nie d he r re lie f be c a use he found she wa s not c re dible , and the B IA a ffirm e d. W e re vie w the B IA’ s c re dibility de t e rm i nat ion unde r the substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

n da rd. K aur v . Gonzale

s , 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th C ir. 2005). Howe ve r, be c a

use this is a

pre -R EAL ID Ac t c a se , the B IA m ust provideat le a st one spe c ific , c oge nt re a son to support its a dve rse c re d ibility

finding tha

t goe s to the he art of the a

p plic ant’ s c la im

of pe rse c ution. Don v . Gonzale s , 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th C i r. 2007). The B IA found tha

t pe titione r wa s not c re dible for four re a sons. First, it note d tha t Pe titione r ha d fa ile d to m e ntion in her a sy l um a pplic ation tha

t she ha d be e n a rre ste d while living in the Unite d State s. This fa c t doe s not go to the he art of Pe titione r’ s c la im

tha t she wa s pe rse c ute d while living in C hina . Se e Singh v . Gonzale s , 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ A n inc onsiste nc y goe s to the he art of a c la im if it c onc e rns e ve n ts c e ntra l to pe titione r’ s ve rsion of why he wa s pe rse c ute d a

nd fle d.” ). 2Se c ond, the B IA note d tha t Pe titione r ha d fa ile d to m e ntion in her a sy lum a pplic a tion or in her te stim ony on the first da

y of the he aring tha

t he r da ughte r ha d an a c c i de nt shortly

a fte r Pe titione r wa s introduc e d to C hristia nity . Pe titione r first m e ntione d he r da

u ghte r’ s a c c ide nt whe n

she wa s be ing c ross-e xam ine d on the se c o nd da y of the he aring be c a

u se she sa id it wa s one of the re a sons she de c ide d to c onve rt to C hristia

nity . She sa id she ha d pra y e d for he r da

ughte r and he r da ughte r’ s re c ove ry

he lpe d solidify

he r fa ith in God. The

B IA found tha

t this te stim ony wa s inc o nsiste nt with the re s t of Pe t itione r’ s story

and tha t it wa s unre a s ona

ble for he r to ha

ve wa ite d so long to me ntion thea c c ide nt be c a use she c la im e d it wa s c ritic a l t o he r de c ision to c onve rt. The se findings a re not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Pe titione r’ s te stim ony wa s not inc onsiste nt. On dire c t e xam ination, shesa id he r husba nd ha d de ve lope d a

gam bling proble m , a

nd he r frie nd, Hu Ying, he ard a

b out it a nd told Pe titione r to turn to God for he l p a nd be c om e a C hristia n . On c ross, she sa id he r da ughte r ha d a

n a c c ide n t shortly a fte r she spoke with Hu Ying a nd she re m e m

be re d Hu Ying’ s a dvic e an d pra y e d to God for he lp. Pe titione r’ s de la y in m e ntioning the

a c c ide nt is e xpla ine d

by the fa c t tha

t she wa s a ske d diffe re nt que stions on dire c t a nd c ross. On dire c t, he r a ttorne y a ske d how Pe t itione r wa s introduc e d to C hristia nity . On c ross, R e sponde nt a ske d, “ Wh at we re som e of the things tha t inspire d y ou to be c om e a C hristia n? ” and “ Why

did 3y ou de c ide to c onve rt to C hristia nity pe rsona lly ? ” Adm inistra

tive R e c ord (“ A.R .” ) 244, 249–50. The B IA m ay

have a lso re lie d on the IJ’ s obse rvat ions a bout Pe titione r’ s de m e anor. The IJ found Pe titione r’ s te stim ony to be inc onsiste nt be c a

use she wa s

“ ve ry poise d” whe n disc ussing he r husba n d’ s ga m b l ing proble m

but showe d a

“ tre m e ndous a

m o unt of e m o tion” whe n ta lking a bout he r da

ughte r’ s a c c ide nt. A.R . 62–63. This finding is not supporte d by the re c ord. Whe n pe titione r first spoke a bout he r husba

n d ’ s ga m bling proble m , the tra

nsla tor sa id he c ould not unde rsta nd wha t she wa s sa

y ing be c a use she wa s “ sobbing.”A.R . 161. The IJ the n sa id, “ M a ’ am , y ou a

ppe ar to be be c om ing e m otiona l. The re ’ s som e tissue to the right if y ou ne e d tha

t.” Id. The IJ did not discuss this e xc ha nge in his opinion. Third, the B IA found tha

t Pe titione r’ s a c c ount of how she wa s a ble to le ave C hina wa s inc onsiste n t . Aga in, the B IA’ s finding is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The B IA found tha t it would be

im possiblefor pe titione r to ge t a pa ssport a

nd le ave C hina

using he r own doc um e nts if shewa s a c tua l ly unde r surve i lla nc e by loc a l offic i a ls a

nd prohibite d from

le a v ing he r hom e town. As support for this c onc lusion, the B IA pointe d to pe titione r’ s te stim ony tha t she did not be lie v e he r husba

nd would bea

ble to le ave C hina

be c a u se he ha s a

ba d re c ord. Any argum e nt a

b o ut wha t Pe titione r’ s husba

nd c ould or c ould not do is ba se d on 4spe c ulation be c a use Pe t itione r sa id he ne ve r trie d to ge t a pa ssport. Se eSingh , 439 F.3d at 1105 (“ [A] n IJ m ay not ba se a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inations on spe c ulation or c o n

je c ture not supporte d by

e vide nc e in the re c ord.” ). And pe titione r offe re d a

pla usible e xpla

nation for how she

wa s a b le to obta i n a

pa ssport. She sa id she pa id bribe s to publicoffic ia l s, whic h is c onsiste n t with e vide nc e subm itte d by

re sponde n t tha

t shows c orruption is wide spre a d in C hina and tha t c orrupt offic ia ls ofte n

he lp pe ople proc ure both fa ke and ge nuine trave l doc um e nts. Pe titione r a lso pla

usibly e xpla ine d how she wa s a ble to le a ve town to a

p ply for a visa at the U.S. e m

ba ssy . She sa id the surve illa nc e she wa s unde r wa s ve ry loose . She wa s re q

uire d to re port to thepolic e sta t ion onc e a

we e k and loc a l offic ia ls stoppe d by

he r house e ve ry

fe w da y s, but othe rwise she wa s a llowe d to go a bout he r re gula r busine ss. Fina lly , the B IA note d

tha t Pe titione r ha d fa ile d to providea le tte r or a ffidav it from

he r husba

nd to c orroborate he r te stim ony . Howe ve r, without a le gitim ate ba sis for que stioning her c re dibility , the B IA c ould not re quire Pe titione r to produc e c orroborating e vide nc e . Se e Li v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ In a

pre -R EAL ID Ac t c a se , a bse n t othe r substa

n tia l e vide nc e of a dve rse c re d ibility , the produc tion of c orroborating e vide nc e c annot be re quire d.” ). For a ll of the se re a sons, we will de e m Pe titione r’ s te stim ony c re dible . Se e Soto-Olarte v . 5Holde r , 555 F.3d 1089, 1094–95 (9th C ir. 2009) (noting tha t this c ourt m ay

de e m an a s y l um a pplic ant c re dible if “ [i] t is a p pa re nt from the re c ord be fore us tha t the IJ a nd B IA have liste d a ll possible re a sons to support a

n a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation” ). If he r te stim o ny

we re de e m e d c re dible , the IJ found tha t Pe t itione r would have c a rrie d he r burde n of proof to show she suffe re d pa st pe rse c ution a

nd ha s a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution, a nd R e sponde nt did not c ha lle nge this c onc lusion. As a

re sult, Pe titione r is pre sum e d to be e ligiblefor a sy lum

and e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l unle ss R e sponde nt pre se n ts e v ide nc e tha t re buts this pre sum

ption. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 208.13(b)(1) (noting tha t an a pplic ant who shows pa st pe rse c ution is pre sum e d to be e ligiblefor a sy lum unle ss the gove rnm e nt de m onstra

te s tha t the re ha s be e n a

funda m e nta l c ha

nge in c irc um sta

nc e s or tha

t the a pplic ant c a

n sa fe ly re loc a te within he r c ountry of nationa lity ); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(b)(1)(i) (a

pply ing sa

m e rule to a

pplic ations for withholding of re m ova l). R e sponde nt ha s not pre se nte d a ny suc h e vide nc e . The re fore , we gran t Pe titione r’ s a pplic a tion for withholding of re m ova l an d

find tha t she is e ligiblefor a sy lum . W e re m and for the Attorne y Ge ne ra l to e xe rc i se disc re tion in de c iding whe the r to gra nt Pe titione r a sy lum . B e c a

use we grant Pe t itione r withholding of rem ova l, we do not re m and the c a se for c onside ration of he r a pplic ation for re lie f unde r the C AT. 6PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D. W ithholding of r e m oval

G RANT E D . Asy l um c laim RE M ANDE D.

7Zhang v . Holde r , 10-70985

O’ SC A NNLAIN, C irc u i t Judge , disse nting: B e c a use substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the a dve rse c re dibility finding, I re spe c tfully

disse nt. Whe n a ske d why

she c onve rte d to C hristia nity , Yingc hun Zha

ng told a n e m otiona l story

c e nte ring on he r da

ughte r’ s a c c ide nt a

nd the fe a r she fe lt for he r da ughte r’ s sa fe ty . In de t e rm ining tha t Zha ng’ s te stim ony

wa s not c re dible , the im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) re lie d on the fa c t tha t Zha n g first m e ntione d this story on c ross-e xam ination, ra

the r tha n in he r a sy l um

a pplic ation. In a ffirm i ng the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion, the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) re a s one d: [Zha ng] om itte d from

he r a sy l um

a pplic ation theda

ughte r’ s a c c ide nt and the role he r da

ughte r pla

y e d in [he r] c onve rsion to C hristia n ity . Give n the e m otiona l im

pa c t the da

ughte r’ s a c c ide nt ha d on the re sponde nt during he r te stim ony , it wa s not unre a sona ble for the Im m igration Judgeto e xpe c t this information to beinc lude d in [Zha ng’ s] a sy lum

a pplic ation. Ac c ordingly , this signific ant om ission supports the

Im m i gration Judge ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. As the B IA rightly n o te d, signific ant om issions c an support a n a dve rse c re d ibility

finding, e ve n in pre–REAL ID Ac t c a se s. In K in v . Holde r , we rule d that : 

# FIL ED MAR 12 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

1Pe titione rs om i tte d a ny m e ntion of the ir pa

rtic ipation in a de m onstra

tion tha t is thee ntire ba sis for the ir c l a im for politic a l a sy lum . Wh e n c onfronte d with theom ission a t the a s y lum

he aring, Kin sta te d tha t he fe lt inc lusion in the

a sy lum a pplic ations wa s not ne c e ssa ry be c a use the de m onstra

tion would be

disc usse d at the he aring. This e xpla

nation is not pe

rsua sive e n ough to c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the om issions we re im

m ate ria l. 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th C ir. 2010). In this c a se , Zha

n g’ s writte n a

pplic ation fa ile d to m e ntion there a son for he r c onve rsion to C hristia

nity , whic h wa s the ba sis for he r c l a im s. W he n a ske d to e xpla in why

she ne v e r m e ntione d he r da ughte r’ s a c c i de nt be fore he r c rosse xam ination te stim ony , Zha ng c la im e d

tha t he r da u ghte r’ s a c c ide nt wa s not ve ry signific ant in he r c onve rsion: “ Ac tua lly , m y husba nd’ s issue is the m a

jor re a son that inspire d m e to be lie ve God.” In light of the e m otion with which Zha

ng de sc ribe d he r da

u ghte r’ s a c c ide nt, he r subse que nt “ e xpla nation is not pe

rsua sive e nough to c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the om ission[ wa s] im

m ate ria l.” Id. For the fore going re a sons, I would deny the pe tition.

2