Zhuen Li v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

AUG 07 2015

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHUEN LI, No. 11-70346

Petitioner, Agency No. A094-930-243

v.

MEMORANDUM*

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014** San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order from the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his claim for asylum, withholding of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Li’s petition.

1. An immigration judge (IJ) must “‘provide specific and cogent reasons in

support of an adverse…

MEMORANDUM **

Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his claim for asylum, "withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny Li’s petition.

1. An immigration judge (IJ) must “ ‘provide specific and cogent reasons in *632 support of an adverse credibility determination.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir.2009)). Here, the BIA concluded that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was justified by: (1) the IJ’s findings that Li provided a false address on an application for work authorization; (2) inconsistencies in Li’s testimony about alleged church raids in 2005 and 2006; (3) inconsistencies between Li’s testimony about the injuries he suffered in the 2006 raid and hospital records of his injuries; (4) inconsistencies between Li’s testimony about his journey to the United States and the information in his application for asylum; and (5) insufficient corroborating evidence.

2. The evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the…

dissenting:

Although the BIA relies on a number of grounds in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, the majority — as I understand its disposition — relies solely on inconsistencies in Li’s testimony regarding his travel to the United States. The majority does so because the grounds other than the inconsistencies regarding Li’s travel to the United States are either wholly unsupported by the record or clearly trivial. I agree with the majority that Li’s testimony is inconsistent with his travel documents. I do not believe, however, that the inconsistency between Li’s testimony and the travel documents are significant enough to deem his entire testimony not credible.

If an IJ does not make an express adverse credibility determination, the BIA must accept a petitioner’s testimony as true. Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.2004). Furthermore, the BIA cannot affirm an IJ’s adverse credibility determination unless the IJ provides “specific and cogent reasons” for the determination that are supported by substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1043 (9th Cir.2010). Absent a valid adverse credibility determination, the BIA must accept…