Haobo Du v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAOBO DU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71348
Agency No. A088-277-038
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Haobu Du, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial
of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny 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).
FILED
JUL 3 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Du’s internally conflicting testimony and documentary evidence
contradicting that testimony. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40,
1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that an adverse credibility finding was reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances). Du’s testimony as to whether he attended
university in China and what he studied was internally inconsistent and also
conflicted with the information he provided in his visa application. Moreover, he
also inconsistently testified as to his employment history, including which
companies he worked for in China, when he worked at those companies, and why
he previously traveled to the United States for work.
In addition to considering Du’s conflicting testimony, the IJ provided
specific and detailed examples to support her determination that he was evasive
and nonresponsive, and the BIA properly credited the IJ’s demeanor assessment.
See Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The record supports the
agency’s demeanor finding, as there are many instances where the IJ explicitly said
that Jin’s answer was nonresponsive.”); Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153
(9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that the “need for deference is particularly strong in the
context of demeanor assessments”). Du’s explanation for the inconsistencies and
his evasive demeanor does not compel a contrary result. See Zamanov v. Holder,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we uphold the agency’s denial of
asylum and withholding of removal due to a lack of evidence.
Because Du’s claim for CAT relief is based on the same testimony that the
IJ found not credible, and he points to no other evidence that the IJ should have
considered in making its determination under the CAT, his CAT claim also fails.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --