Chang Yan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANG YAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73948
Agency No. A099-364-835
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Chang Yan petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Yan’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
Against Torture (“CAT”). Yan’s application centered on his allegation that he was
persecuted for practicing Christianity in China. Our analysis is governed by the
REAL ID Act, and we deny the petition for review.
Yan primarily argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not
supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Under the REAL ID Act,
“[i]nconsistencies no longer need to ‘go to the heart’ of the petitioner’s claim to
form the basis of an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Thus, “even
minor inconsistencies, in proper circumstances, will support an adverse credibility
determination.” Id. at 1043 n.4.
Here, the IJ identified several inconsistencies that properly supported the
ruling. For example, in his written application, Yan stated that, after his arrest,
police officers first brought him into a room, then told him to empty his pockets,
and then handcuffed him. But at the hearing, Yan testified that he was handcuffed
before entering the room. The handcuffs were then removed and he emptied his
pockets, and finally he was handcuffed again. Although “a mere lack of detail in
the initial asylum application that the applicant later clarifies at the immigration
hearing cannot serve as a basis for an adverse credibility finding,” Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011), Yan did not testify that his testimony

-- 2 of 5 --

1 While the dissent chides the majority for engaging in the same
“trivial,” “flyspecking” strain as the IJ to uphold the latter’s adverse credibility
finding, it does not dispute that our analysis is in accord with the REAL ID Act.
-3-
was a clarification of his asylum application. Instead, when asked about the
inconsistency, he “remembered it wrong.”
Yan also testified inconsistently about his route of travel to the United
States. In his written application, he stated that he had gone from Hong Kong to
Mexico to San Diego. At the hearing, he testified that he had gone from Hong
Kong, to South Korea, to Los Angeles, to Mexico, and then finally back to the
United States. The IJ relied on several other inconsistencies regarding, for
example, Yan’s employment and education.
Taken together, though some of these inconsistencies and omissions do not
go to the heart of Yan’s claim, they support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding
under the REAL ID Act. Thus, we are not “compelled to conclude” that the IJ’s
credibility finding was erroneous. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Because the IJ’s credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence,
we cannot overturn the denial of Yan’s application for asylum and withholding of
removal.1 See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The IJ also
properly denied Yan’s CAT application, which rested on the same evidence and
testimony as his asylum application. Id. at 1157.

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 5 --

Yan v. Holder, No. 08-73948
NOONAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
The inconsistencies and omissions identified by the Immigration Judge are
of a trivial character without bearing on the credibility of Yan's testimony. Subject
to such flyspecking, few applicants for asylum and few appellate judges would
pass as credible witnesses. The IJ strains to find Yan not credible. The court
engages in the same strain.
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 5 of 5 --