N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SHENG M IN DONG,

Pe t i tione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71643 Age n c y No. A201-025-463
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 A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, B Y B EE, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED JAN 11 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.She ng M in Dong pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his
a pplic a tions for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l. 1 W e de ny

the pe tition. 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a dve rse c re dibility finding a ga inst Dong. Se e Shre s tha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). Dong wa s c onfronte d with se ve ra l inc onsiste nc i e s in his te stim ony and supporting doc um e ntation, suc h a s whe the r he wa s be ate n with a n e l e c tric bat on or a

sta nda rd baton a nd how c lose ly

he wa s m onitore d

by the polic e a fte r his a

rre st. His
e xpla nations for those

inc onsiste nc ie s we re the m se lve s inc onsiste nt, le aving theIJ with a se nse that Dong wa s be ing untruthful. 2 The se are pre c i se ly the kinds of de te rm i nations tha

t m e rit de fe re nc e to the trie r of fa c t. Id. at 1041 (“ The de fe re nc e that the REAL ID Ac t re quire s m a ke s se nse be c a

use IJs a re in the be st position to
a sse ss de m e anor a

nd othe r c re dibility

c ue s tha t we c annot re a dily

a c c e ss on re vie w.” ); J

ibril v . Gonzale

s , 423 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th C ir. 2005) (noting tha t “ an
1 Dong did not e xha

ust his c la im for re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). The B IA de te rm ine d tha t Dong wa ive d his C A T c l a im on a ppe a l. Dong doe s not c ha lle nge this de te rm ination. W e the re fore re vie w only Dong’ s c la im s for a s y lum an d withholding of rem ova l. 2 Dong a lso a

rgue s tha t re fe re nc e s to the ty

pe of bat on use d we re not inc o nsiste nt but ra

the r transla

t ion e rrors. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s and B IA’ s re

je c t ion of this e xpla

nation be c a

use Dong’ s e xpla

nat ion c ha

nge d during theproc e e dings. Dong initia lly de nie d m aking thesta

te m e nt the n, a fte r he looke d on the Inte rne t, he a sse rte d tha t the te rm s we re use d inte rc ha nge a bly
. 2IJ m

ust be a llowe d to e xe rc ise c om m on se nse in re

je c ting a pe titione r’ s te stim ony ” ). Dong fa ults theIJ a

nd the B IA for fa iling to spe c ific a lly m e ntion Dong’ s hospita l re c ord a

nd ba il re c e ipt in the ir de c isions. Although “ t he REAL ID Ac t’ s

‘ t ota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s’ sta nda rd . . . im pose s the re quire m e nt tha t a n IJ not
c he rry pic k sole ly

fa c ts fa voring a n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination while ignoring fa c ts tha

t unde rm ine that re sult,” id. at 1040, this is not to sa y that a n IJ or the B IA m

ust spe c i fic a lly

“ disc uss e a c h

pie c e of e vide nc e subm itte d.” C olev . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th C ir. 2011). “ Whe n nothing in the re c ord or the B IA’ s de c ision indic ate s a fa ilure to c onside r a l l the e v ide nc e , a ‘ g e ne ra l sta

te m e n t that [the a ge n c y ] c onside re d a ll the e vide nc e be fore [it] ’ m ay be suffic ie nt.” Id. (a lte ra tions in origina

l) (c ita tion omitte d). The IJ’ s de c i sion inc lude s a sta te m e nt tha

t it took “ into a c c ount a ll of [Dong’ s supporting] doc um e nts a nd the te stim ony

offe re d by both witne sse s, whe the r or not spe c ific a lly sta te d in the ana ly sis whic h

follows.” In light of the
num e rous inc onsiste nc ie s in Dong’ s te stim ony and his inc onsiste nt e xpla nations for those inc onsiste nc ie s, the fa ilure to spe c ific a lly a ddre ss the hospita l re c ord a nd ba il re c e ipt doe s not sugge st tha t the IJ fa i le d to ta

ke the m into a c c o unt. The y

are of lim ite d proba

tive va lue and do not c ha

n ge the fa c t tha

t Dong wa s othe rwise
3inc o nsiste nt in his te stim ony . The hospita l re c ord c orroborate s Dong’ s te stim ony

that he wa s hospita liz e d for injurie s susta ine d a s a re sult of be ing “be ate n” two da y s be fore he wa s a dm itte d
. It doe s not spe c ify who be at Dong. Theba il re c e ipt
c orroborate s Dong’ s te stim o ny tha t he wa s re le a se d on ba il the sa m e da y he wa s hospita liz e d. It doe s not spe c ify why Dong wa s de ta ine d. On this re c ord, we
c annot c onc lude tha

t it wa s e rror not to a ddre ss the s e doc um e nts spe c ific a lly
. 2. Having fa ile d to te stify c re dibly , Dong fa ile d to e sta blish tha t he qua lifie d for the re que ste d re lie f. C o ntra ry to Dong’ s a sse rtions, theIJ did not “ e xpre ssly lim it” his a dve rse c re dibility finding to te stim ony

re g arding pa st pe rse c ution. Dong m ista

ke nly e quat e s a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding arising out of

te stim ony
a bout pa s t pe rse c ution with a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding only

as to te stim ony
a bout pa s t pe rse c ution. B e c a u s e the IJ a

nd the B IA found tha

t Dong’ s te s tim ony fa ile d to e sta

blish his c la im s for a sy l um an d withholding of re

m ova l ge ne ra l ly , re m and is unne c e ssa

ry . DE NIE D.

4