NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
OCT 15 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REN FU WU, No. 20-71949
Petitioner, Agency No. A213-143-252
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 13, 2021**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, MILLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Ren Fu Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of his application for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
*
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
The agency’s denial of relief rested on its adverse credibility finding.
Substantial evidence supports that finding. See Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct.
1669, 1677 (2021); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
First, the immigration judge reasonably found it implausible that Wu and his
partner, Xue Mei Zeng, repeatedly attempted to conceive a child outside of
marriage for four years after the couple was of age to marry, after family planning
officials had previously forced Zeng to have an abortion precisely because the
couple had been underage and unmarried. The immigration judge provided Wu an
opportunity to address that issue, and Wu responded only that the couple “did not
really care about” or “pay much attention” to marriage and that he was “busy
with . . . work” and “forgot about it.” The immigration judge reasonably found that
explanation wanting. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 833–37 (9th Cir. 2021).
The implausibility “reach[es] the heart of [the] claim for relief” and is therefore
“‘of great weight.’” Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010)).
Second, the immigration judge reasonably found the timeline and
circumstances surrounding Wu’s updating of his household register to be
suspicious. Wu testified that he updated his household register in April 2017
because “the characters typed by the staff [were] not very straight and also some
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
dates could not be seen.” But Wu also testified that “in China in the rural area, we
don’t really pay much attention or care about” updating records. The immigration
judge reasonably found this testimony to be inconsistent. Wu was then directed
specifically to address why he waited until 2017 to add his wife and children to the
register, even though he had married in 2014 and had two children in 2016. Wu
answered that he waited “[b]ecause at that time the children were born . . . so we
did it all together.” As the immigration judge found, that explanation did not make
sense in light of Wu’s previous explanation: If Wu thought minor legibility issues
warranted updating his register, he would not have waited years to make
substantive updates. And if he cared about the accuracy of the register, he would
not have waited years to update the register to reflect his marriage. The
immigration judge was not required to accept Wu’s “unconvincing” explanations.
See Aguilar Fermin, 958 F.3d at 892.
Third, the immigration judge reasonably found Wu’s corroborating
documents to be unreliable. The certificate memorializing Zeng’s alleged abortion
in 2007 was not notarized; Zeng’s letter did not mention the certificate; and while
Wu testified that Zeng mailed him the certificate, he did not have the package label
and could not testify as to when and how the certificate was created. Under the
circumstances, the immigration judge was not required to accept the certificate as
reliable. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007–08 (9th Cir. 2017). The
3
immigration judge also noted “numerous problems” with the contents of Wu’s
household register. For example, the register reflected an address that Wu testified
had been invalid for five years and showed that Zeng did not move in with him
until April 2017. Wu argues that all of the errors that were cited on the 2017
household register were corrected on the updated 2018 register. But the 2018
register continued to reflect the wrong address and a move-in date of April 2017
for Zeng. Those discrepancies call into doubt whether Wu was married to and
living with Zeng during the relevant period and thus strike at the heart of his claim.
Wu contends that the immigration judge was required to provide him notice
and an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in his corroborating documents,
along with an opportunity either to call family members as witnesses or to
introduce letters from them corroborating his account. But “[b]ecause the
[immigration judge] found [his] testimony not credible, the [immigration judge]
was not required to give [him] notice and an opportunity to provide additional
corroborating evidence.” Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020);
accord Yali Wang, 861 F.3d at 1008–09.
PETITION DENIED.
4