Chen

facts, and was misleading. Contrary to Chen’s position, the IJ focused on Chen’s

dishonesty—not his attorney’s. Moreover, Chen gave inconsistent answers about

whether he had lied in his 2008 application, despite the IJ’s repeated attempts to

clarify. That evidence supports an adverse-credibility finding.

Second, inconsistencies between a petitioner’s application and hearing

testimony can support an adverse-credibility finding. See Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th

1291, 1297 (9th Cir. 2022). Chen’s description in his application of interactions that

he had with Chinese police related to his religious practices does not match his

25-997 description of these events at his 2024 hearing testimony. Although Chen

acknowledged that his 2008 application included false information and attributed it

to his attorney making changes to the information that he provided, Chen certified

that the information in his application was true. The IJ did not err in refusing to

accept Chen’s explanation for the inconsistency in his statements. See Li v. Garland,

13 F.4th 954, 960–61 (9th Cir. 2021) (acknowledging that an IJ does not have to

accept an applicant’s…