Jianming Wang v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANMING WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73296
Agency No. A099-902-102
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2018**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jianming Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal. The BIA affirmed
the Immigration Judge’s order denying Wang’s application for asylum,
FILED
FEB 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We
deny the petition.
The BIA concluded that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not clearly
erroneous. We review the decision for substantial evidence. Villavicencio v.
Sessions, 879 F.3d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 2018). This is a highly deferential standard.
“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice
between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164,
1171 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (U.S.
1985)). The adverse credibility finding was based on a permissible view of the
evidence.
Substantial evidence supported the finding that Wang’s testimony regarding
the respondent’s role in his church in China was inconsistent. Wang’s initial
explanation of his role was ambiguous and was reasonably understood to have
been a denial of leadership. Petitioner later testified that he was the leader of his
church group. Moreover, the IJ based the adverse credibility determination on
Wang’s demeanor, a determination to which we must give special deference. 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (an IJ may base an adverse credibility determination on
the “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness” of the applicant); see Ling Huang v.
Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The need for deference is
2

-- 2 of 3 --

particularly strong in the context of demeanor assessments.”). Here the IJ pointed
to specific instances in the record where Wang was evasive and non-responsive.
Substantial evidence also supported the finding that Petitioner’s testimony
was implausible. The IJ’s determination that church members were part of a group
classified by the Chinese government as an “evil cult” was based on background
evidence before the IJ, and therefore “can support an adverse credibility finding.”
Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005). If a group is so persecuted
that it is labeled an “evil cult,” it is not plausible that ten members of that group
would have enough political strength to arrange Brother Li’s release. As the IJ
reasoned, if protesting members of Petitioner’s church had actually persuaded the
mayor and secured Brother Li’s release, as alleged, “why would it not be
reasonable to conclude that the same mayor or any other person . . . [could]
communicate with the authorities so that the respondent would never be arrested,
never be placed in detention, or his behavior never questioned[?]”
We do not reach the other grounds cited in support of the adverse credibility
finding. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003) (“So long as one of
the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence . . . we are bound to
accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --