Jinglong Liu v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINGLONG LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71286
Agency No. A205-175-004
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 12, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District
Judge.
Petitioner Jinglong Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China (China), seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
FILED
JUL 01 2019
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 Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Convention Against Torture. The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
decision that Petitioner was not credible due to inconsistences in Petitioner’s
testimony and material omissions from Petitioner’s asylum application. We deny
the petition for review.
Petitioner’s application for relief is based on two separate incidents: (1)
Petitioner’s attempt to prevent his wife from undergoing a forced abortion pursuant
to China’s one child birth policy, and (2) Petitioner’s whistleblowing regarding
equipment problems at his former place of employment.
The BIA’s adverse credibility finding as to Petitioner’s first claim is
supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner offered conflicting testimony
regarding whether he and his wife suspected she was pregnant. Petitioner initially
testified that his wife had no idea she was pregnant, but then admitted during the
IJ’s questioning that he and his wife wondered whether she might be pregnant
because she had missed her period. His testimony regarding his opposition to the
abortion was not credible because as the IJ and BIA correctly concluded, it is
unlikely the birth control office would call Petitioner and wait for him to arrive
when the officials had already decided that Petitioner’s wife would be required to
have an abortion.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding as to
Petitioner’s second claim regarding his alleged whistleblowing. He testified that
after he left China the police showed up at his home every few months looking for
him. But this significant point was not included in his application. When the IJ
asked about this omission Petitioner stated he hadn’t thought about it. The IJ and
BIA reasonably drew an adverse credibility inference from this material omission.
See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding the
petitioner’s explanation that he “forgot” about an altercation with the police was
not believable).
Further, Petitioner provided a letter in support of his asylum application
from his former employer, but the letter says nothing about any termination of
Petitioner or about any police investigation. The letter simply provides Petitioner’s
dates of employment. As the IJ and BIA concluded, it seems unlikely that the
company would fire him, refer him to the police, and then provide a letter of
employment without referencing these material events. The record does not
compel a favorable credibility finding on either his claim of opposition to a forced
abortion or fear of retaliation from whistleblowing. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992).
DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --