FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHULING ZHANG, No. 06-73139
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-448-266
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 4, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: HALL, FISHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Shuling Zhang, is a native and citizen of China who entered the
United States without inspection. Zhang filed an application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) denied Zhang’s asylum application as untimely, and denied her other
claims based on an adverse credibility finding as well as failure to demonstrate that
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
she would likely be persecuted or tortured if removed to China. The Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Zhang timely filed a petition for review and
we deny the petition.
Where the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, “we review the IJ’s decision as if it
were that of the BIA.” Hoque v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2004). “We
review the BIA’s findings of fact, including credibility findings, for substantial
evidence and must uphold the BIA’s finding unless the evidence compels a contrary
result.” Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir.), amended by 339 F.3d
1012 (2003).
Zhang’s adverse credibility finding was based on (1) her inability to correctly
answer certain questions about Christianity, (2) her demeanor while answering
questions regarding her faith, and (3) several inconsistencies in her testimony and
documentary evidence. If even “‘one of the identified grounds is supported by
substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [Zhang’s] claim of persecution, we are
bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.’” Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959,
964 (9th Cir. 2004) (alteration added) (quoting Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th
Cir. 2003)).
Although it is not necessarily unfair for an IJ to explore a petitioner’s
understanding of her religion, see Cosa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
-2-
2008), Zhang’s incorrect answers to questions about the tenets of Christianity have
only limited import, if any, to her credibility. One can adhere to a religion without
being able to articulate answers to all questions about it. See id. However, we need
not consider the bearing of Zhang’s answers on her credibility because there is
sufficient evidence other than these answers to support the adverse credibility finding.
First, the IJ had the opportunity to evaluate Zhang’s demeanor in person. The
IJ noted that Zhang was visibly nervous, shifted repeatedly in her chair, and began
crying in the middle of cross-examination after having been giggling and smiling a
few minutes earlier. We give “‘special deference’ to a credibility determination that
is based on demeanor.” See Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Under this deferential standard, Zhang’s
demeanor provides substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility finding.
Second, the IJ noted many inconsistencies in Zhang’s testimony that go to the
heart of her claim. For instance, Zhang provided inconsistent evidence regarding
where she was arrested, and failed to mention until the end of her cross-examination
that she was under daily police surveillance. These inconsistencies deprive Zhang’s
claim of “the requisite ‘ring of truth.’” See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067
(9th Cir. 2005).
-3-
Given the deference we accord to the IJ’s demeanor findings, as well as the
inconsistencies in Zhang’s story, the record does not compel the conclusion that the
adverse credibility finding was in error.
Zhang also argues that the agency erred by concluding that her asylum
application was untimely. Because the adverse credibility finding is supported by
substantial evidence, any error in the agency’s failure to consider a declaration offered
by Zhang regarding the date of her arrival is harmless.
The petition for review is DENIED.
-4-