Mingqing Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MINGQING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-769
Agency No.
A212-959-668
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 8, 2023**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Mingqing Chen, 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
JUN 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Wang v. Sessions,
861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), we deny the petition.1
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.
“We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, and must
uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Singh v. Holder, 643
F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011). Chen first argues that the IJ erred by admitting
his asylum interview notes because the notes were not a verbatim transcript of the
interview. But so long as the notes contain “sufficient indicia of reliability,” they
are admissible impeachment evidence. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926
(9th Cir. 2020). Here, because Chen’s interview was conducted under oath with
help from an interpreter and the notes contain a record of questions and answers
during the interview, the notes were properly admitted. See id.
The BIA also noted several inconsistencies in Chen’s testimony at his
asylum interview and his hearing before the IJ regarding the dates and frequency
of his church attendance and the date on which he first saw his detention notice.
Chen argues the contradictions in his testimony are “minor inconsistencies,”
attributable to his nervousness during the proceedings. But the IJ and BIA were
1 Although Chen raised a CAT claim before the IJ, he did not meaningfully
challenge the denial of the claim before the BIA and fails to make any argument
regarding CAT relief in our court. Thus, we do not address the issue. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]his court will
not ordinarily consider matters ‘that are not specifically and distinctly argued in
[the petitioner]’s opening brief.’” (quoting Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039,
1048 (9th Cir. 2003)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
not required to accept Chen’s explanation for his inconsistent testimony. See Li
v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that, even if the petitioner’s
explanation were reasonable, “the IJ and Board were not compelled to accept [the
petitioner’s] explanation for the discrepancy”). Nor are the discrepancies so
“trivial” as to “have no bearing on [Chen’s] veracity,” such that they “should not
form the basis of an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010). For example, Chen’s testimony during his
asylum interview that he attended church only “two times” in China contradicts
his testimony before the IJ that he attended church “[t]hree to four times a month”
in China. Because the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Chen
testified credibly, we deny Chen’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --