FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YINHUI SHI, No. 12-72549
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-064-206
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted September 2, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Yinhui Shi, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2 of 3
(“CAT”).1 The immigration judge found Shi not credible and denied his
application, and the BIA affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the determination
that Shi was not credible and therefore cannot establish eligibility for relief.
Shi testified that he was arrested in China on March 26, 2004, after being
discovered with a copy of a publication critical of the Chinese government. He
later testified that his son was two months old at the time. But he also testified and
stated in his application that his son was born on March 17, 2004, just nine days
before his arrest. Shi also testified that, two days after being released by the police,
he went to a hospital, where he was told that a bone in his nose was dislocated. Shi
claimed he was punched in the nose on the first day of his detention and punched
in his head and kicked five days later. Shi testified that he was not released until
nine or ten days after that. However, medical records showed that Shi went to the
hospital five days after he claimed to be released, not two, and that he told the
doctor that his nose had been painful for only one day.
“[M]inor discrepancies in dates that . . . cannot be viewed as attempts by the
applicant to enhance his claims of persecution have no bearing on credibility.” Ren
v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (ellipsis in original) (quoting Singh
1
Shi made no argument in his opening brief regarding the BIA’s rejection of
his CAT claim. That claim is thus waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
Page 3 of 3
v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2005)). But it was not unreasonable for
the BIA to expect Shi to remember that his second child was born just nine days,
rather than two months, before he was supposedly arrested, beaten by police, and
detained for over two weeks. Nor was it unreasonable to expect him to recall when
he sought treatment for the injuries he allegedly suffered. We thus cannot say that
the record in this case compels a contrary result. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789–91 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.