Wang
Wang v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Inconsistencies the BIA cited in Wang’s testimony concerning his wife’s abortion and his threat of sterilization provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility finding. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004). Inconsistencies in Wang’s testimony about his religious persecution do not “go to the heart of’ his claim for asylum based on family planning persecution, but they contribute to the failure of the petitioner to persuade the IJ that he was a credible witness. Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061,1066 (9th Cir.2005).
Because substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding, and the petitioner’s conflicting stories do not reveal compelling reasons to go beyond the credibility issue to re-examine the merits, the petition is DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Dissenting Opinion
Thomas, J.
I respectfully dissent. In order to survive appellate review, the IJ or BIA must identify “specific, cogent reasons” for an adverse credibility finding, and the reasons must be substantial and legitimately connected to the finding. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004). This means that the reason identified must “strike at the heart of the claim” to asylum. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004). “Minor inconsistencies ... that do not relate to the basis of an applicant’s alleged fear of persecution, [or] go to the heart of the asylum claim” do not generally support an adverse credibility finding. Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir.2003). An adverse credibility determination may not be based on speculation or conjecture not supported by evidence in the record. Ge v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1121,1124-25 (9th Cir.2004).
We independently review each ground the agency cites in support of an adverse credibility finding. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2005). Here, Wang makes two independent claims for asylum — one based on China’s population control program and the other based on his religion.