United States v. 2020-11-17 | 18-71672 | MING ZENG V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MING ZENG; ZHENGQUAN LIU,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71672
Agency Nos. A205-168-816
A205-168-817
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2020
**
Pasadena, California
Before: CHRISTEN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,
***
Chief
District Judge.

Ming Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing her appeal from the Immigration
FILED
NOV 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* *
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
* * *
The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

Judge’s (IJ) order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a),
and we deny the petition.
1
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Ren
v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir. 2011). Zeng testified inconsistently about
four events that were material to her claim that Chinese authorities persecuted her
for violating the one-child policy. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047
(9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim, it doubtless
is of great weight.”). First, Zeng testified that her family agreed that she would
adopt Tian Tian, but she also testified that her parents intended to do so. Zeng
never explained how, at 22 years old, she planned to adopt Tian Tian when
Chinese law did not allow those under 35 to adopt. The BIA agreed that this
inconsistency was not trivial as it relates to Zeng’s claim that authorities forcibly
aborted her baby because they thought that Zeng was Tian Tian’s mother. Second,
Zeng testified inconsistently about when and how often family planning officials
came to her parents’ home—and also about whether they were looking for her
parents, or for her. She was asked about the visits four times and each time gave a
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those facts
necessary to decide the petition.
2

different response. When asked to explain the inconsistency, Zeng said she could
not remember the details. The BIA concluded that she never answered the
questions.
Third, Zeng testified that officials fined her parents for having a child in
violation of the policy, warned them to move Tian Tian out of the city, and that her
parents then moved to a different city with Tian Tian between 1996 and 1998 while
Zeng remained. The BIA agreed that this testimony was inconsistent because it
suggested that the family planning officials thought Zeng’s parents had Tian Tian
and that her parents took primary responsibility for Tian Tian, not Zeng. Finally,
Zeng testified inconsistently about why she used her ex-husband’s last name on
Tian Tian’s official documents. She testified that her ex-husband bribed an official
to list Tian Tian as his sister on their household registery to fool the family
planning office into thinking that they did not have a child, but also testified that
she listed him as Tian Tian’s father on school documents before the couple married
and after the couple separated. The BIA agreed that her testimony was implausible
and contradictory. Because Zeng gave vague and inconsistent statements about
events material to her claim, the BIA did not err by affirming the IJ’s decision. See
Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1999).
3

Zeng failed to produce sufficient evidence corroborating the abortion. Her
sole hospital record confirms she had an IUD in 2005 (two years after the abortion)
and her sole explanation for the lack of other records is that the hospital would
release them only if she requested them in person, which she could not do while in
the United States. Zeng’s ex-husband’s declaration was inadequate because he was
not present at the time of the abortion and he was unavailable for cross-
examination. We find no error in the BIA’s order affirming the IJ’s decision.
In light of the agency’s adverse credibility determination, Zeng failed to
meet her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the CAT. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49.
PETITION DENIED.
4