FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENGE ZHANG, No. 10-70857
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-128-587
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 January 9, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) adverse credibility
determination is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA identified two
specific inconsistencies, both of which are supported by the record. First, Zhang
said Li was a “repeat” customer in his written statement, but during his testimony
said Li was a first-time customer. Second, Zhang described the painting he saw in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2 of 2
Li’s home as depicting a person nailed on a cross in his written statement, but
during his testimony described it as depicting a person with a cross above his head.
Given these inconsistencies, which are not “trivial,” see Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010), we are not “compelled to conclude” that the
adverse credibility determination was in error. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
2. The record does not support Zhang’s claim that he was denied an
impartial adjudicator. At most, the record shows that the immigration judge may
have been impatient with Zhang during his hearing testimony. But “expressions of
impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger,” without more, are
insufficient to establish bias or partiality. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,
555–56 (1994).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.