Case Name: LI QIANG CHENG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-01
Citations: 704 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 14-72211
Parties: LI QIANG CHENG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI and IKÚTA, Circuit Judges, and GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
LI QIANG CHENG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72211
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted November 17, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed December 1, 2017
Albert Chow, Attorney, Lin & Chow, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jesse David Lorenz, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: KOZINSKI and IKÚTA, Circuit Judges, and GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Robert W, Gettleman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
"We review the BIA's findings of fact, including credibility findings, for substantial evidence and uphold the BIA's findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result." Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013), Cheng has presented no evidence that the 1-213 form was inaccurate, see Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995), and has not exhausted his claim that the 1-826 form was improperly admitted. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Nor has Cheng established that the immigration judge's credibility finding lacked support in the record: "[E]ven a petitioner's minor inconsistencies, when aggregated or when viewed in light of the total circumstances, may, undermine credibility." Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.