Jiang Zheng v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANG ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71371
Agency No. A205-452-174
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2021**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jiang Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of her claims
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law
* 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).
FILED
OCT 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
de novo. Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). We
held this case in abeyance pending our en banc proceedings in Alam v. Garland,
11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). We now grant the petition and remand
this case to the BIA to apply the legal standard that we announced in Alam.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that Zheng was not credible
because of an inconsistency in her oral testimony and written submissions
regarding the number of people that the Chinese police arrested at a religious
gathering at Zheng’s house. The IJ identified no other substantive inconsistencies
in her testimony. In upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, the BIA
appeared to rely—at least in part—on our decision in Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d
1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011), for the proposition that it “must uphold” that
determination “so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence.”
The BIA erred by relying on this “single-factor rule.” First, that rule applied
only to this court’s review of a BIA decision, not to the BIA’s review of an IJ
decision. Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1087 (noting that the court of appeals “must uphold the
IJ’s adverse credibility determination” if a single ground is supported by
substantial evidence). Second, we recently abrogated the single-factor rule in Alam
v. Garland, holding that the rule conflicts with the REAL ID Act of 2005, which
requires that credibility determinations be made—and reviewed—based on the
“totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.” 11 F.4th at 1135-37.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we remand this case for reconsideration of the IJ’s credibility
determination under the proper test.
PETITION GRANTED.

-- 3 of 3 --