N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LEI C HEN, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-72617 Age n c y No. A213-045-055 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 M arc h 4, 2020 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B UR GESS, *** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r, Le i C he n , a native and c itiz e n of the Pe ople ’ s R e p ublic of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) dism issa l of his



# FIL ED APR 9 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Tim othy

M . B urge ss, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa tion.a

ppe a l from

the Im m i gra tion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de n ia l of his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , 1 withholding of rem o v a l, 2 and C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ) 3 re lie f. W e de ny the pe tition. The B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t a n a lie n is not e ligiblefor a sy lum m ust be uphe ld “ if ‘ supporte d by re a sona ble , substa

n tia l, a n d proba tive e vide nc e on the re c o rd.’ ” IN

S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992). “ It c an be re ve rse d only if the e v ide nc e pre se nte d . . . wa s suc h that a re a sona ble fa c tfinde r would ha

ve to c onc lude tha

t the re quisitefe ar of pe rse c ution e xiste d.” Id. ; se e also Lianhua J iang v . Holde r , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th C ir. 2014). Tha

t sa m e sta n da rd a pplie s to a dve rse c re d i bility de te rm inations. Se e Shre s tha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). W e have re v i e we d

the re c ord a

nd we are satisfie d tha

t the B IA’ s de c ision wa s supporte d

by substa n tia l e vide nc e . The B IA a gre e d with theIJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t C he n wa s not c re dible , ba se d on num e rous inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n C he n’ s te stim o ny and the a sy lum

offic e r’ s note s from

C h e n ’ s C re dible

1 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(1). 2 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(A). 3 Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture and Othe r C rue l, Inhum an or De gra ding Tre a tm e nt or Punishm e nt, adopte d D e c . 10, 1984, S. Tre a ty Doc . No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, im ple m e nte d

at 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18. 2Fe ar Inte rvie w. 4 Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). The se inc onsiste n c i e s dire c tly

bore on the se riousne ss of C he n’ s c la im e d fe ar of pe rse c ution, a nd the IJ provide d c le ar re a sons for re

j e c ting C he n’ s e xpla

nat ions for e a c h

inc onsiste n c y . S

e e Silv aPe re ira v . Ly nc h , 827 F.3d 1176, 1185–86 (9th C ir. 2016); S hre stha, 590 F.3d a

t 1043–44. For e xam

ple , his story

re ga rding the m a ssa g e pa

rlor inc ide nt tha

t pre c ipita te d his le a

ving C h ina

wa s signific antly

c ha nge d a n d e m be llishe d whe n he te stifie d be fore the IJ. Se e Silv a-Pe re ira, 827 F.3d a t 1185–86. M ore ove r, the c orroborating e vide nc e he subm itte d wa s not suffic ie nt to re ha bilita t e his c re d ibility
. Se e Garc ia v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2014). TheIJ a lso re a s ona bly c onc lude d tha

t C he n ’ s volunta

ry re t urn to C hina

unde rm ine d his c la im that he fe are d pe rse c ution. Loho v . Muk ase y , 531 F.3d 1016, 1018–19 (9th C ir. 2008). The e vide ntia

ry re c ord doe s not c om

pe l a c ontra ry c onc lusion. W e are a lso sa

tisfie d that, be c a

u se C he n fa ile d to providec re dible te stim ony e sta blishing a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution, he ha s the re fore fa ile d to e sta blish a c le ar proba

bility of pe rse c ution, a s re quire d for his withholding of re m ova l c la im
.

4 W e are sat isfie d tha

t the a sy lum

offic e r’ s note s we re suffic i e ntly re lia ble and provide d a

use ful c om

pa rison with C he n’ s in-c o urt te stim ony . Se e Lizhi Qiu v
. Barr , 944 F.3d 837, 843 (9th C ir. 2019); Yan Liu v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 918, 923 n.2 (9th C ir. 2011). 3Se e Garc ia , 749 F.3d a t 791; Farah v . Ashc r oft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). La stly , C he n ha s fa ile d to e sta blish e ligibility

for C AT re lie f. C la im s for C AT re lie f are “ ‘ ana l ytic a lly se pa ra te ’ ” from a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l c la im s. Garc ia , 749 F.3d a t 791. Howe ve r, “ a

c l a im for re lie f unde r C AT m ay still bere je c te d whe n the pe titione r fa ils to provide e vide nc e be y ond those sta te m e nts tha

t the IJ de t e rm ine d we re not c re dible .” Lianhua J iang , 754 F.3d a

t 740; se e also Singh v. Ly nc h , 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th C ir. 2015); Farah , 348 F.3d a t 1157. C he n’ s C AT c la i m re lie d on the sa

m e e v i de nc e tha

t wa s found to benot c re d ible
. The B IA the re fore c orre c tly c onc lude d tha t C h e n fa i le d to e sta

blish e ligibility for C AT re lie f. Pe tition DE NIE D .

4