NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONGLIN LIU, No. 18-72208
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-851-801
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2020**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: OWENS, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Honglin Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an order
of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Liu
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
contends that he and his wife were harmed by the Chinese government’s
enforcement of population control programs, including when his wife was forced
to obtain an abortion in 1996 and then to be sterilized in 2001. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s1 adverse credibility
determination. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining
that, in applying the substantial evidence standard, “[w]e reverse the BIA’s
decision only if the petitioner’s evidence was ‘so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could find that he was not credible’” (quoting Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003))). The record supports the agency’s finding that
Liu falsely stated on his asylum application that he had not served in the Chinese
military and failed to make a sufficiently timely correction to that application. See
Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1163-67 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the IJ and
BIA may “disbelieve a witness’s entire testimony if the witness makes a material
and conscious falsehood in one aspect of his testimony”). The record also supports
the agency’s finding that there were inconsistent and implausible aspects of Liu’s
testimony about the date of his marriage, the date of his marriage registration, and
1
“Where, as here, the [BIA] incorporates the IJ’s decision into its own
without citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), this court will
review the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated.” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771
F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). We refer to the BIA and the IJ collectively as
“the agency.”
2
the dates and process through which he obtained household registrations for his
family members.
Because “we must uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination so long
as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence,” and the evidence does not
compel a conclusion contrary to the agency’s with respect to the grounds discussed
above, we need not address the additional reasons the agency provided in support
of its adverse credibility determination. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th
Cir. 2011). And in the absence of Liu’s discredited testimony, Liu has not shown
that he is entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. See
Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).2
PETITION DENIED.
2
We need not address the Government’s argument that Liu’s petition for
review is limited to challenging the agency’s denial of asylum, and that he
therefore forfeited any challenges to the denial of withholding of removal and CAT
protection. Liu’s petition for review urges us to overturn the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. Because we reject Liu’s arguments for doing so, and
because his withholding of removal and CAT claims depend on crediting his
testimony, it is unnecessary for us to determine which claims would have been
preserved if we had reached a different conclusion about credibility.
3