NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 22 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAIDA ZHANG, No. 16-73802
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-543-155
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted January 10, 2020
Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District
Judge.
Kaida Zhang (“Petitioner”), a citizen and native of China, petitions for review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his claims for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture Act (“CAT”) on
adverse credibility grounds. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
*
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.
affirm.
“[W]e review adverse credibility determinations under the substantial
evidence standard.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). The
court “must uphold the [] adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis
is supported by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.
2011). “Because credibility determinations are findings of fact by the [Immigration
Judge], they ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. at 1087 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
Based first on the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) demeanor findings and second
on his analysis of Petitioner’s testimony regarding the way Petitioner obtained
notarized documents prior to his return to the United States, we find that substantial
evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. The IJ provided specific and
cogent reasons for disbelieving Petitioner’s testimony because of Petitioner’s
demeanor while testifying. See id. at 1088 (“The IJ ‘must . . . offer specific, cogent
reasons for any stated disbelief.’” (citation omitted)). The IJ also provided specific
and cogent reasons for disbelieving Petitioner’s explanations regarding certain
documents he brought to the United States on his second trip where Petitioner did
not need the documents to enter the United States on his first trip only a few months
earlier and denied planning on applying for asylum during the second trip.
Petitioner’s remaining evidence did not independently establish his claims for
2
asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief.
PETITION DENIED.
3