Siyuan Wang v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIYUAN WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70659
Agency No. A200-268-067
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2023
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Siyuan Wang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reviewing for substantial evidence, Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
JUN 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2
2017), we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
“To overturn an IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we must find that the
evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Lianhua Jiang v.
Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 739 (9th Cir. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Alam v.
Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (simplified). In other words,
reversal is warranted only if a petitioner “present[s] evidence so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could find that he was not credible.” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (simplified). A petitioner’s “plausible” explanation
of evidence supporting an adverse credibility determination warrants reversal only
if the record “compel[s] the finding that the IJ’s unwillingness to believe this
explanation . . . was erroneous.” Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.
2011). Wang’s explanations for his inconsistent testimony do not compel such a
finding here.
The BIA and IJ relied on inconsistencies in Wang’s purported graduation date.
During his testimony before the IJ, Wang gave a range of dates when pressed about
his graduation date, ranging from “mid-January” to “about February 4th.” His
diploma listed April 29, 2011 as his graduation date, but Wang testified that he was
in police custody on that date. On appeal, Wang contends that his answers were
consistent; he finished his exams in January, left campus in February, and received

-- 2 of 5 --

3
a diploma issued in April. But while this explanation is compatible with his
testimony, it is just one possible justification for his variety of answers, which the
agency is not bound to accept.
The BIA and IJ also noted inconsistencies in the alleged threats he received
from Chinese officials. During his testimony, Wang said both that Chinese
authorities threatened him with three years and five years of imprisonment. When
confronted with the inconsistency, Wang testified that he could not “really remember
clearly” the answer. But after prompting from his attorney, Wang testified that he
had been threatened with a “range” of three to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Wang now asserts that there were two distinct threats—police first threatened him
with three years in prison while he was in custody, and later told his family that he
faced five years in prison if he were found. But this narrative conflicts with Wang’s
testimony before the IJ that police threatened him once with a range of three to five
years in prison.
The BIA and IJ also questioned his conflicting answers on the origin of the
bail receipt introduced into evidence. Wang initially claimed that the police gave
his father a bail receipt when Wang was released from custody. But in a letter,
Wang’s father stated that the police would not give him a bail receipt. Wang argues
that because the government does not challenge the authenticity of the receipt in the
record, any question regarding how Wang received the receipt is immaterial. But

-- 3 of 5 --

4
“even minor inconsistencies” may impact a petitioner’s credibility. Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010). Unlike “a mere trivial error such as a
misspelling,” id., Wang’s inconsistent testimony regarding the bail receipt bears on
his credibility.
Wang also gave inconsistent testimony about his church attendance in the
United States. Wang first stated that he began attending church in Honolulu in April
2016. He later explained that he moved to Honolulu in August 2016 and began
attending church there at that time. And the letter from his church that Wang
submitted to the IJ states that he began attending services in April 2017. Wang now
argues that he first attended church in April 2016, began attending regularly in
August 2016, and became more involved in the church in April 2017. But this
explanation does not comport with the church’s statement that Wang “has been
attending” services “since April 2017” and “is now a regular participant” in church
activities.
While Wang’s post hoc explanations for the contradictions in his testimony
could be plausible, we cannot say that the record compels the agency to accept
Wang’s justifications. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007).
Reviewing “based on the ‘totality of the circumstances,’” Alam, 11 F.4th at 1135
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), and according a “healthy measure of
deference” to the agency’s credibility determinations, Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1041,

-- 4 of 5 --

5
we hold that substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 5 of 5 --