FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 17 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QINGHAI HUANG, No. 18-70449
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-885-758
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: CHRISTEN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** Chief
District Judge.
Qinghai Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the
*
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).
***
The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.1
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See
Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). The IJ found Huang’s
credibility was undermined because he repeatedly changed his testimony. Huang
first described Exhibit J as a diagnostic certificate showing that he had been
sterilized on March 18, 2007. When Huang’s attorney pointed out that the
document was dated March 2, 2007, Huang then said the document was a notice to
appear for the sterilization procedure on March 18, 2007. Separately, on direct
examination by the IJ, Huang said his wife was out of town and hiding from
authorities because his third child had been born, she did not arrive home until
March 11, 2007, and thus the authorities did not become aware of the birth of his
third child until March 11. This created a discrepancy about how Huang could
have received a March 2 notice to appear for a sterilization procedure if authorities
did not learn about the birth of his third child until March 11. When asked to
explain this discrepancy on cross examination, Huang only testified his parents had
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those facts
necessary to decide the petition.
2
received the sterilization notice on March 2, 2007, not him. This answer was
unresponsive to the government attorney’s request that he clarify the discrepancy
regarding how he could have received a notice to appear for a sterilization
procedure on March 2, 2007, if the authorities did not become aware of the birth of
his third child until March 11, 2007.
Huang then changed his testimony again and said the notice was given to
him three to five months prior to the March 2007 sterilization procedure, in late
2006. This contradicted Huang’s pre-hearing statements to the asylum officer that
his wife obtained the diagnostic certificate because they were fighting and she
wanted proof Huang was sterile. Huang then changed his account again and said
he “volunteered” for the sterilization procedure in place of his wife because she
had a cold.
The BIA agreed with the IJ that Huang’s differing explanations undermined
his credibility. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Major
inconsistencies on issues material to the alien’s claim of persecution constitute
substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility determination.”). Further,
the BIA’s determination that Huang was non-responsive to various questions at his
removal proceeding was supported by substantial evidence. The BIA’s denial of
relief under CAT was also supported by substantial evidence. The record does not
3
compel the conclusion that Huang would more likely than not be subjected to
torture if returned to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)(B) (“administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”).
In light of the agency’s adverse credibility determination, Huang failed to
meet his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the CAT. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th
Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.
4