NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHAOMIN LI, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 72691 Agency No. A209

- 417

- 051

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 18, 2022 * * Honolulu, Hawaii Before: HAWKINS, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Chaomin Li, a citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order upholding the denial of his claims for asylum
based on an adverse credibility determination

. We h av e jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

We review adverse credibility determinations and the attend ant factual findings under the “substantial evidence” standard. Iman v. Barr , 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9 th Cir. 2020). Under this standard, factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary

. ” 8
U. S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

. An immigration judge (IJ) may consider “any relevant factor that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, can reasonably be said to have a bearing on a petitioner ’ s veracity.” Huang v. Holder , 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ren v. Holder , 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9t h Cir. 2011)) ;
see also Alam v. Garland , 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021)

. And as the BIA only partially relied on the reasoning set forth by the IJ in find ing Petitioner not credible ,

w e review only “ the grounds relied upon by ” the BIA. Santiago

- Rodriguez v.
Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
1. Border interview. Petitioner argues that the BIA erred in relying on the
Petitioner’s border interview as it was inherently unreliable

. A border interview
without “sufficient indicia of reliability ” may be “a potentially unreliable point of comparison to a petitioner’s testimony for purposes of a credibility determination

. ” Singh v. Gonzales , 403 F.3d 1081 , 108 7

– 8 9 (9th Cir. 2005). But an indica of reliability exists when an interview is “conducted under oath, with contemporaneous notes containing the questions asked, and transcribed either by a [native language]

- speaking officer or with the aid of an interpreter.” Mukulumbutu v. Barr , 977 F.3d3

924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020). Here, the record i ncludes a written transcript of Petitioner’s interview

. W hile the transcript makes a single reference to the Spanish language , it later specifies the
interview occurred in Mandarin ; Petitioner also admitted at his removal hearing that the interview occurred in Mandarin and that he understood all the questions the agent
asked. Furthermore, Petitioner swor e to tell the truth and was asked at the end of the interview if there was anything he would like to add to his statements

. In considering
the totality of these circumstances , w e conclude the border interview was sufficiently
reliable for the agency to consider it in assessing Petitioner’s credibility. See Matter of J

- C

- H

- F

- , 27 I. & N. Dec. 211, 215

– 16 (BIA 2018)

. 2. Testimony regarding relatives. Petitioner argues that the agency inconsistently interpreted and mischaracterized his testimony, particularly about his plan to live with relatives in Texas

. Petitioner state d at the border that he was unsure
whether he had relatives in the United States , but later at his hearing stated that he
did have relatives in the United States and had planned to live with relatives in Tex as
. When asked about the discrepancy, Petitioner d isclaimed making the statement
recorded from his border interview. Furthermore, Petitioner failed to live with his
Texas relatives after his uncle submitted an affidavit to the immigration court that Petitioner would be living with hi m pending P etitioner’s proceedings. W hen asked why Petitioner never liv ed with uncle as represented in the affidavit , Petitioner stated4

that his uncle had submitted the affidavit as part of Petitioner’s request for bond to “guarantee that [he would ] attend all the he arings.” Petitioner did not provide any compelling explanation or justification that would resolve the discrepancies in his statements in any meaningful way, despite receiving several opportunities to do so

. See Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034,
104 6

– 47 ( 9th Cir. 2010). Consequently, we conclude that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.