N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JIANLONG HAO,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-73229 Age n c y No. A200-274-076
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 ay

7, 2021 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B EA, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Jia nlong Ha o, a

native an d c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision upholding the de nia l of Ha o ’ s
a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re l ie f unde r the C o nve ntion



# FIL ED
MAY11 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 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).Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). Ha o c la im e d tha t he le ft C hina a fte r be ing a rre s te d, de ta ine d, a

nd be ate n for five da

y s for pra c tic i ng C hristia

nity in a n unde rground
c hurc h . The im

m i gration judge(“ IJ” ) c o nc lude d tha t his te stim ony

wa s not
c re d ible a nd de nie d a ll re lie f. The B IA a ffirm e d the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation a

nd dismi sse d Ha o’ s a

ppe a l. For the re a sons e xpla i ne d be l ow, we de ny Ha o’ s pe tition in pa

rt, a nd dismiss it in pa

rt. The IJ m ust a sse ss c re d ibility

unde r “ the tota lity of the c irc um sta nc e s” and
m ay arrive at a

n a d v e rse c re dibility

de te rm i nation ba s e d on “ any ina c c ura c ie s or fa lse hoods in [the

a p plic ant’ s] sta

te m e nts, without re ga

rd to whe the r an inc o nsiste nc y , ina c c ura c y , or fa lse hood goe s to the he art of the a pplic ant’ s c la im .” 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii); se e a lso i d. §§ 1229a (c )(4)(C ), 1231(b)(3)(C ). He re , the B IA a

nd IJ ide ntifie d thre e inc onsiste n c ie s in Ha o’ s te stim ony , whic h support thede nia l of Ha o ’ s a pplic ations for a s y lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l for la c k of c re dibility
. First, the B IA and IJ c ite d a n inc onsiste nc y

a b out whe n Ha o lost his job. In his de c la ration, Ha o c la im e d tha

t he lost his job in 2010, whic h le d him to be hospita liz e d for de pre ssion. He sa id tha t while he wa s re c e iving tre at m e nt, he m e t
a hospita l volunte e r who introduc e d him to the unde rground c hurc h. Whe n te stify ing, howe ve r, Ha o c la im e d tha t he lost his job in Oc

tobe r 2011. The
2gove rnm e nt’ s attorne y dire c tly a ske d Ha o a

b out the c onflic t ing sta

t e m e nts, whic h provide d him

a de q uat e opportunity

to e xpla in the inc onsiste n c y . S e e Rizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [T] he opportunity to e xpla i n m ay be provide d through c ross-e xam ination by the gove rnm e nt, or e ve n

dire c t
e xam ination by

the [pe titione r’ s ] own a

ttorne y , not just through a c o lloquy be twe e n the [pe t itione r] an d the IJ.” ) (c ita tions omitte d). The IJ re a sona b ly
re je c te d Ha o’ s e xpla

nat i on tha t he re m a ine d a

n unsa la rie d m ana ge r and sha re holde r of the c om

pa ny until Oc tobe r 2011 be c a

use it insuffic ie ntly

a ddre sse d the d isc re pa

nc y . Additiona l ly , in providing his e xpla n ation, Ha o offe re d two inc o nsiste nt re a sons for why he le ft his job. Se c ond, the B IA and IJ c ite d a disc re pa nc y a bout whe the r Ha o wa s hospita liz e d a fte r be ing de ta ine d a nd be ate n by

the polic e . In his initia

l te s tim ony , he sta te d tha t im m e diate ly a fte r be ing re le a se d

from polic e c u stody , he we nt to his pa re nts’ h om e whe re the y c a re d for him

for a bout te n da

y s . B ut whe n c onfronte d with a sta te m e nt from

his m othe r that he wa s first hospita liz e d, Ha o te stifie d tha

t he ha d be e n hospita l iz e d, y e t fa ile d to e xpla i n the inc onsiste nc y . B e c a use the hospita liz ation re lat e s dire c tly to Ha o’ s pa st pe rse c ution c la im , the B IA re a sona b ly
re je c te d his a

rgum e nt tha

t it wa s a trivia l om ission. S

e e Silv a-Pe re ira v . Ly nc h , 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xp la ining tha t a dve rse c re dibility
3de te rm i nations m ay be supporte d by

om issions tha

t te ll a m ore c om

pe l ling story

of pe rse c ution). Third, the B IA and IJ note d tha t Ha o te stifie d tha

t he ha d ne v e r le ft C hina prior to e nte ring the Unite d State s through the C a n a dia n borde r. Whe n a ske d why his pa ssport showe d tha

t he ha d tra

ve le d to M a la

y sia and Tha ila

nd be fore fle e ing C hina , Ha o a dm itte d he ha d be e n to thosec ountrie s but provide d no e xpla nation for his c onflic ting te stim o ny . In light of the othe r inc onsiste nc ie s, it wa s
a ppropria te for the B IA to c o nside r this te stim ony in upholding the

IJ’ s a dve rse
c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion. Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 n.4 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [M ] inor inc onsiste nc ie s, whe n a ggre gate d or whe n vie we d in light of the tota l c irc um sta

nc e s, m a y unde rm ine c re dibility .” ). W e the re fore c onc lude that the B IA c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t the IJ’ s
a dve rse c re dibility

finding is supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Ac c ordingly , we
ne e d not re a c h Ha o’ s a

rgum e nts tha

t, whe n c re dite d, he ha s e sta

blishe d pa st pe rse c ution a

nd qua lifie s for withholding of re m ova l. Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to re vie w the IJ’ s re je c tion of Ha o’ s a

pplic ation for C AT re lie f be c a

use Ha o fa ile d to e xha

ust tha t c la im be fore the B IA. Se e Brow n v . Holde r , 763 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ A pe titione r m ay not
c ha lle nge an orde r of re m ova l unle ss he ha s e x ha uste d his c ha lle nge be fore the
4B IA.” ). W e the re fore dism iss tha t portion of his pe

tition. T he pe tition is DE NIE D in par t and DISM I SSE D in par t.

5