NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIANGFU CHEN, No. 20-72934
Petitioner, Agency No. A202-198-791
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 5, 2022**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Xiangfu Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision to dismiss his appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “We
*
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).
review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for
substantial evidence,” which we uphold “unless any reasonable adjudicator would
be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037,
1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts,
we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review.
Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s adverse credibility determination against Chen. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). Chen inconsistently testified about the events
that prompted his visa application—including when his arrest occurred, and what
was required for his release. Although Chen blamed his memory for these
inconsistencies, his explanation is not plausible and ultimately supports the adverse
credibility determination—he should have remembered details of events
underlying his asylum claim and did not reconcile these inconsistencies until
prompted by counsel. See id. at 1044-47 (reasoning that inconsistencies regarding
events prompting an asylum application support an adverse credibility
determination, even considering “the normal limits of human understanding and
memory”); see also Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2020)
(holding that an applicant’s conflicting testimony regarding the event that
prompted him to seek asylum supported an adverse credibility determination
because the details were material to his application).
2
Chen also conceded that he submitted a fraudulent visa application. This
weakens his overall credibility and substantially supports the adverse credibility
determination because he deliberately lied to obtain his visa, which suggests that
he did not obtain it to escape persecution by aiding travel into the U.S. See Singh
v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2011) (reasoning that a fraudulent visa
application supports an adverse credibility determination where the applicant lies
to establish the merits of his claim, as it constitutes “deliberate deception” and
“casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story”).
Finally, Chen failed to provide substantial and credible corroborating
evidence to defeat the adverse credibility determination and sustain his burden of
proof. See Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 927. Chen’s parents’ supporting letter
contained inconsistent material information and Chen’s cousin was not properly
identified as the author of his supporting letter.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3