Suichen Si v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUICHEN SI,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70999
Agency No. A088-476-466
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: SMITH, JR. and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN,*** District
Judge.
Suichen Si (“Si”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the
* 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 Stanley A. Bastian, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Si contends he is entitled to relief due to
persecution on account of his political opinion. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determinations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d
1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting we review “denials of asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial
supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole”) (quotation omitted). Si provided inconsistent dates
regarding the dates on which he began working for his former employer, and he
then gave varying explanations for that inconsistency. Because his alleged
employment with his former employer is central to his claim of persecution, his
inconsistent testimony regarding this fact is even more glaring. See Malkandi v.
Mukasey, 576 F.3d 906, 918 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that discrepancies need not to
go the heart of the applicant’s claim to support the adverse credibility finding).
Moreover, his testimony was often vague, evasive, and non-responsive, and
at times, implausible. When asked why he was seeking asylum, Si gave a rambling,
incoherent explanation describing a vague power struggle between two officials. Si
also gave vague and evasive testimony regarding the alleged encounters with the
police and his family. His explanation why his wife, who he contacted monthly,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
could not corroborate his claims was incredible.
In the absence of any credible testimony from Si, the record does not compel
the conclusion that SI is entitled to relief.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --