N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT XINTAI ZHAI, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72777 Age n c y No. A095-876-560
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 an d Subm i tte d

Nove m be r 6, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , PREGER SON, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Xinta i Zha i pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his
a pplic ations for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny

the pe tition for re v ie w . 

# FIL ED D EC 22 2015 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.Whe re , a s he re , the B IA c onduc ts a n inde pe nde nt re vie w of the e vide nc e and la w, our re vie w“ is limite d

to the B IA’ s de c ision, e xc e pt to thee x te nt tha t the IJ’ s opinion is e xpre s sly

a dopte d.” Hosse ini v . Gonzale s , 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th C ir. 2006). W e the re fore re vie w the re a sons ide ntifie d by the B IA, a s we ll a s those provide d by

the IJ in support of its a

d ve rse c re dibility

finding. Se e C

haw la v
. Holde r , 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th C ir. 2010); Te k le v . Muk ase y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008). Adve rse c re dibility findings a

re re vie we d for substa

ntia l
e vide nc e an d will beuphe ld unle ss a re a sona ble fa c t -finde r would be c om pe lle d to
c onc lude to the c ontra

ry . Almaghzar v . Gonzale s , 457 F.3d 915, 920 (9th C ir. 2006). Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

finding a nd de nia l of re l ie f in this pre -R E AL ID Ac t c a se . Zha i fa ile d to c re dibly e sta b lish his ide n tity , a “ ke y e le m e nt[] ” in his a sy lum c la im
. F a rah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). B a se d on the re port a nd te s tim ony

of a fore nsic e xam ine r from the Unite d State s Im

m i gration a

n d C u stom s Enforc e m e nt Fore nsic Doc um e nt La boratory (“ FDL” ), the B IA found tha t the C hine se R e side nt Ide n tific ation C ard subm itte d by

Zha i wa s c ounte rfe it. This c a se is distinguisha

ble from Ye imane -Be rhev . Ashc roft , 393 F.3d 907, 911 (9th C i r. 2004). Unde r Ye imane -Be rhe , subm ission of a fra udule nt doc um e nt 2that

m a y go to the he a

rt of a n a sy lum c la i m

is not a utom atic a lly

de te rm inative of
an a d ve rse c re dibility

finding, e spe c ia lly

whe re the re is no indic ation tha t the pe titione r kne w the doc um e nt wa s fra udule nt. Id . Unlike in Ye i mane -Be rhe , the B IA he re pointe d

to spe c ific e vide nc e tha

t Zha i kne w tha

t his ide ntific ation c ard
wa s fra u dule nt. Zha i te stifie d

tha t the public se c urity

bure a u in C hina

issue d the ide n tific ation c ard to him in pe rson a

nd tha t his wifese nt the sa

m e c a rd to him in the U nite d State s from C hina . As the B IA indic ate d, if Zha i is c re dible , it le a ds to the “ unlike l y

infe re nc e tha

t the public se c urity

bure a u issue d a c ounte rfe it doc um e nt to him , or tha

t he initia l ly

re c e ive d a

ge nuine ide n tific ation c ard, but his wife m a ile d

him a diffe re nt, fra

udule nt doc um e nt without notify ing him .” Zha i a lso offe re d a

nota ria l birth c e rtific ate , hospita l le tte r, and m e dic a l
re c o rd a long with the

c ounte rfe it ide ntific ation c a rd, none of whic h

c ould be
a uthe ntic ate d. It wa s re a sona ble for the IJ a

nd the B IA to de c ide tha

t the se una uthe n tic ate d doc um e nts we re insuffic ie n t to c re dibly e sta b lish Zha i’ s ide ntity
. Se e In ReO-D- , 21 I. & N. De c . 1079, 1081–83 (B IA 1998). This is e spe c ia lly true he re , whe re Zha i kne w y e a rs be fore his m e rits he aring tha t the ide ntific ation
c ard wa s de te rm ine d to be c ounte rfe i t by the FDL. De s pite this notic e , Zha i still fa ile d to provide a

re a s ona ble e xpla nat ion for his subm

ission of the

c ounte rfe it doc um e nt or to provide

a dditiona l e vide n c e to prove his ide ntity . At the ve ry le a st, 3Zha i provide d no e vide nc e to c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t he is c re dible
. Se e Farah , 348 F.3d a

t 1156. Thus, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the de nia l of a sy lum
. B e c a use Zha i re l ie d on the sa

m e te stim ony and e v ide nc e to prove his withholding of rem o v a l c la im , the B IA’ s de nia l of withholding of re m ova l is a lso supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Id
. Pe tition DE NIE D.

4