Kejin Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEJIN CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71100
Agency No. A087-886-096
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 11, 2020
Submission Vacated November 24, 2020
Resubmitted September 16, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and HILLMAN,** District
Judge.
Kejin Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Timothy Hillman, United States District Judge for the
District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
FILED
SEP 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We have jurisdiction to review Chen’s petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review only the reasons the BIA gave in support of its decision, and we review
those reasons for “substantial evidence.” Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th
Cir. 2019) (quoting Navas v. I.N.S., 217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir. 2000);
Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2019). Under that standard, we
must find the BIA’s reasons sufficient unless, after reviewing the record as a
whole, “any reasonable adjudicator” would have been “compelled” to reach a
different conclusion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Garland v. Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669,
1677 (2021).
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chen did
not meet his burden of proof to qualify for asylum or withholding of removal
because “some of his corroborative evidence conflicts with his testimony and other
corroborative evidence.” Reviewing the record as a whole, we find a number of
conflicts between Chen’s testimony and corroborating documents that go to the
heart of his claim, which the BIA did not explicitly identify.1
1 The BIA pointed to a “conflict” between Chen’s testimony that he was released
because his mother paid the police 5000 RMB, and the statement in his Certificate
of Release that he was released because of insufficient evidence. However, those
two statements do not necessarily conflict. If Chen’s mother paid a 5000 RMB

-- 2 of 5 --

3
For example, in his asylum statement, and in the testimony he later gave
before an immigration judge (IJ), Chen claimed that he converted to Christianity
around October 2006. He explained that he graduated from University in July
2006, moved home, and began to look for work. He felt huge pressure to find
work, at least in part because his parents worked at a supermarket, and made only
enough money to cover their daily expenses. After months of searching for a job
without any success, he became depressed, and on October 1, 2006, he began
attending a Christian church in his hometown to help deal with his depression..
However, a number of other documents Chen submitted contradict that
account. For one, Chen submitted a copy of his Chinese diploma, which states that
he did not graduate University in 2006, but that he graduated in January 2007. The
town where Chen attended University was nearly 400 miles away from his
hometown. So, if the date on his diploma is accurate, Chen could not have been at
home looking for work and attending church during the time period he testified
that he was. The IJ gave Chen the opportunity to explain the inconsistency, but he
failed to do so.
Chen also submitted a copy of his visa application, which stated that his
father worked at the Shenyang Public Security Bureau, not at a grocery store, and a
bribe to get him out of prison, it’s unlikely the police would admit to that on an
official document.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
copy of his I-20 forms, which show that while Chen was in the US, his father was
able to pay nearly $50,000 in tuition over four years. Those documents undermine
Chen’s claim that he was stressed because his parents were struggling to make
ends meet.
Finally, Chen submitted a letter from a member of his church in Los
Angeles, which stated that as of 2011, Chen had not yet converted to Christianity:
“[Chen] has yet to become a Christian, a believer of Jesus Christ, because he is not
yet convinced or convicted [sic] that Christ is the only way to salvation as God has
planned. However, he is still searching for his spiritual truth.” That letter not only
contradicts Chen’s testimony that he converted in 2006, it casts doubt on whether
heconverted at any point between 2006 and 2011.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Chen
did not meet his burden of proof to qualify for protection under CAT. To qualify
for CAT relief, an applicant must establish that is it “more likely than not” that he
would be tortured if removed to his country of origin. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); see
also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010).
The IJ found that Chen failed to meet his burden of proof because, after
reviewing Chen’s testimony and the supporting documentation he provided, he
found no evidence that Chen had been tortured in the past or that the Chinese
authorities had any reason to torture him in the future. Chen’s record certainly

-- 4 of 5 --

5
does not compel the conclusion that he would be tortured if returned. None of
Chen’s other arguments have merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 5 of 5 --