Bin Zhang v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BIN ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71930
Agency No. A089-992-910
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 9, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and SILVER, ***
District Judge.
Bin Zhang petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
* 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 Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2
decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination for substantial evidence, Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007
(9th Cir. 2017), we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmation of the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding against Zhang. “[C]redibility
determinations [are] made on the basis of the ‘totality of the circumstances, and all
relevant factors.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). In determining that Zhang lacked credibility, the IJ
noted internal inconsistencies in Zhang’s testimony and inconsistencies between
Zhang’s testimony and his supporting documents. The BIA reviewed the
inconsistencies identified by the IJ and found no evidence of clear error.
Specifically, the BIA evaluated inconsistencies relating to Zhang’s claims that (1)
he and his family were mistreated by the local family planning authorities in China
for violating China’s one child policy, and (2) he was persecuted for his Christian
faith.
The record shows that Zhang was inconsistent in testifying whether his wife
was on birth control when she became pregnant with their second child. Initially,
1 Before the BIA and in his Opening Brief, Zhang failed to pursue his
application for relief under the Convention Against Torture, and thus waived it. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Zhang testified that his wife had been taking a birth control pill until she found out
she was pregnant. But later during questioning, Zhang changed course, stating that
his wife had stopped taking birth control before getting pregnant. The BIA was not
required to accept Zhang’s explanation for the inconsistency. See Li v. Garland, 13
F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that even if the petitioner’s explanation of
inconsistencies in her testimony was reasonable, the BIA was not compelled to
accept her explanation).
Zhang next challenges the finding that he lacked credibility for failing to
disclose in his asylum application that his wife was forcibly subjected to a birth
control procedure after his second child was born. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d
1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that a key omission from an asylum application
can support an adverse credibility determination). Zhang asserts that he did not
know his wife was subjected to the procedure when he submitted his application.
But as the IJ and BIA noted, Zhang had an opportunity to update his application, yet
he did not disclose the information until the hearing. Nor did Zhang submit any
corroborating evidence that his wife had actually been subjected to the procedure.
Zhang’s testimony is further weakened because he claimed that he speaks with his
wife every two or three days on the phone since coming to the United States, which
shows that he had the opportunity to learn of the procedure and update his asylum
application but failed to do so.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Zhang also challenges the finding that it was implausible that he was able to
travel over 200 kilometers to Beijing for a visa interview when he was purportedly
under house arrest and subject to daily surveillance by police. The “inherent
plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account” is enough to “base a credibility
determination.” Wang, 861 F.3d at 1008 (simplified). It was not unreasonable for
the IJ and BIA to be skeptical of Zhang’s account of evading police oversight to
travel over 100 miles to obtain visa approval.
Zhang asserts that the BIA erred by concluding that Zhang lacked sufficient
documentary evidence corroborating his claims. However, the BIA was less
concerned by Zhang’s lack of documentation than by the apparent inconsistencies
between the documents and Zhang’s testimony. For example, Zhang claimed to
have been a member of the Living Water Church in the United States since 2009;
however, he submitted letters from the church stating that he had been a member
since either September 2011 or January 2013. When “the IJ adequately identified
problems with [the petitioner’s] testimony and documentary evidence, . . . we are
not compelled to conclude that [the petitioner] was credible.” Id.
2. Zhang argues that, notwithstanding the BIA’s adverse credibility
finding, the documentary evidence he provided is sufficient to corroborate his claims
and make him eligible for asylum. But Zhang’s proffered passport and ID cards only
verify his identity and do not provide evidence backing up his claims. The fine

-- 4 of 5 --

5
receipts Zhang produced for having an unauthorized second child and for attending
an illegal church in China are not determinative given the discrepancies in Zhang’s
testimony about his family planning and church attendance. Finally, the letters
verifying Zhang’s attendance at a church in China are not persuasive because the
authors were not available for cross-examination. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (upholding BIA determination that corroborating
documents failed to rehabilitate adverse credibility determination because the
preparers were not available for cross-examination).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 5 of 5 --