Case Name: LONG BAO HUA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-02
Citations: 435 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 07-73754
Parties: LONG BAO HUA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and GERTNER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 631–633

Head Matter:
LONG BAO HUA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73754.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 9, 2011.
Filed June 2, 2011.
James Robert Canfield, James Canfield, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and GERTNER, District Judge.
The Honorable Nancy Gertner, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, Boston, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Long Bao Hua, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)'s affirmance of the Immigration Judge (IJ)'s denial of his application for political asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Following two merits hearings, the IJ denied Hua relief, finding his testimony "utterly incredible" and holding that Hua had failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Hua timely petitioned for review. We deny the petition.
We have jurisdiction to review the agency's final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). "Where . the BIA has reviewed the IJ's decision and incorporated portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ's decision as the BIA's." Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002). Adverse credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). This means that the agency's findings "are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also, e.g., Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir.2007). As Hua's asylum application was filed after August 2005, it is governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005. See, e.g., Matter of S-B-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 42, 43 (BIA 2006); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii), as amended by § 101(a)(3) of the REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302 (2005) (discussing standard for credibility determinations).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination, which was based on: (1) inconsistencies between the supplemental declaration Hua submitted with his asylum application ("the 1-589 declaration") and his testimony before the IJ; (2) internal inconsistencies in Hua's testimony before the IJ; and (3) Hua's failure to provide sufficient evidence to corroborate his testimony that Hmong Christians are being displaced from their lands by Vietnamese authorities. The IJ meticulously documented instance after instance where Hua's testimony diverged significantly from the events described in his 1-589 declaration. Importantly, the details Hua omitted from his 1-589 declaration were those details that reflected the alleged persecution he had suffered in Vietnam. Both the IJ and the BIA also noted several significant inconsistencies within Hua's testimony. Finally, despite having two opportunities to do so, Hua did not present any evidence supporting his assertion that the Central Highlands were part of a "first national defense economic zone" and that, as a consequence, ethnic minorities like the Hmong were being systematically displaced from their lands.
Because the adverse credibility determination is dispositive of Hua's asylum claim, we do not reach the agency's alternative holding that, even if credible, Hua has not established a well-founded fear of future persecution.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
. A recent Human Rights Watch report appears, however, to corroborate certain aspects of Hua's testimony. See Human Rights Watch, Montagnard Christians In Vietnam: A Case Study In Religious Repression (Apr.2011), available at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/ 201 l/03/30/montagnardchristians-vietnam-0 (discussing religious repression of Central Highland Protestants, including those within a "defense economic zone"). Although this report is not in the record, it indicates that conditions in Vietnam may have worsened since 2005, when Hua filed his asylum application. Such evidence may support the filing of a new asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4), 1208.4(a)(4). We express no view on the merits of any such application, should one be filed.