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

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-73269 Age n c y No. A087-829-269
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 August 15, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd W U, *** Distric t

Judge
. Pe titione r Zha o y ang C he n se e ks re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) de c ision de ny ing M s. C he n’ s a pplic at ions for a sy l um , withholding of



# F IL ED AUG 19 2019 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 Ge orge H. W

u, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we de ny the pe t ition. B e c a

use the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c ts, we re c ite only those fa c ts ne c e ssa

ry to de c ide the pe tition.

“ W he re the B IA issue s its own de c i sion but re l ie s in pa rt on theim

m igration judge ’ s re a soning, were vie w both de c isions.” Singh v . Holde r , 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Flore s-Lope z v . Holde r , 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th C i r. 2012)). W e re v i e w fa c tua l findings, inc luding a d ve rse c re dibility

de te rm inations, for substa ntia l e v ide nc e . Lianhua J iang v
. Holde r , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th C ir. 2014). Unde r the REAL ID Ac t of 2005, a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm inat ions a

re ba se d on “ the tota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s, a nd a l l re le va

n t fa c tors,” inc luding “ the de m e anor, c an dor, or re s ponsive ne ss of the a pplic a n t,” or “ t he c onsiste nc y ” of the
a pplic ant’ s sta

te m e nts. Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii)). “ [T] he R EAL ID Ac t re quire s a he a lthy m e a s ure of de fe re n c e to a ge nc y c re dibility de te rm inations” be c a

u se im m igration judge s (IJs) “ are in the be st position to a sse s s de m e anor a nd othe r
c re d ibility

c ue s tha t we c annot re a dily

a c c e s s on re vie w,” id. at

1041, so long a s

2the IJ provide s “ a spe c i fic c oge nt re a son for the a dve rse c re dibility finding.” Id. at 1042 (quoting G ui v . IN

S , 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th C ir. 2002)). The a dve rse c re d i bility de te rm ination a ga inst M s. C he n is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The IJ de ta ile d se ve ra l spe c ific re a sons supporting a n
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion, inc luding “ disc re pa nc ie s be twe e n [M s. C he n’ s] doc um e nts a

nd he rse l f,” “ he r de m e anor a nd the wa y she te stifie d,” c onflic ts be twe e n he r te stim ony

to the a s y lum

offic e r and to the IJ, a

nd “ the la c k of pla u sible or pe rsua sive e xpla n a tions” for the inc onsiste nc ie s or fa ilure to obta in
c e rta in doc um e nts. The IJ de sc ribe d se ve ra l inc onsiste n c ie s in both M s. C he n’ s doc um e ntation a

nd te stim ony , inc luding he r te stim ony a bout two “ dive rse ly diffe re nt birth c o ntrol m e thods” be fore the a sy lum offic e r a nd the IJ, he r c ha

nging te stim ony a bout he r m othe r be ing ste riliz e d, a nd he r “ ge ne ra lly

. . . va gue ” te stim ony . M s. C he n wa s una ble to e xpla in to theIJ why she a ppa re ntly c ould not
re c a ll he r m othe r’ s a l le ge d ste riliz a tion, a bout whic h she ha d pre viously give n de ta ils to the

a sy lum offic e r, inc luding thedat e , the re a sons for the ste riliz at ion,
and how it ha d im

pa c te d he r. Furthe r, the IJ de te rm ine d tha t M s. C he n’ s
e xpla nations we re “ sim

ply unpe rsua sive and in fa c t im pla usible ,” inc luding tha

t she ha d lost a ll of he r origina l doc um e nts e xc e pt he r pa s sport, y e t m a de no
a tte m pts to repla c e the m , tha

t she did not re m e m

be r a ny of he r te stim ony

to the
3a sy lum offic e r, and tha t she ha d be e n unpre pa

re d for he r a sy lum

inte rvie w, whe n she wa s re pre se nte d by

c ounse l and ha d two inte rpre te rs. W e are like wise unpe rsua de d by Pe titione r’ s a rgum e n t tha

t the B IA
m isa p plie d Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th C ir. 2011). Re n a pplie s whe n
an IJ finds a

n a pplic an t c re dible but de te rm ine s tha t the a pplic ant’ s te stim ony

a lone is insuffic ie nt to m e e t the burde n of proof. Id. a t 1091. In those c irc um sta

n c e s, Re n re quire s tha

t the IJ give the a

pplic ant notic e of what c o rroborating e vide nc e is
ne c e ssa ry and a n opportunity to produc e the e vide nc e or e xpla in why it is not
re a s ona bly ava ila ble
. Id. at 1093. R e n ha s no a pplic a tion whe n, a s he re , the IJ de te rm i ne s tha

t , de spite som e c orroborating e v i de nc e , the Pe titione r la c k s
c re d ibility
. In light of the

a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination, Pe titione r fa ile d to
m e e t he r burde n of e s ta

blishing e ligibility

for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, or prote c tion unde r the C AT. Se e Shre s tha , 590 F.3d a

t 1048–49. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4