Qun Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QUN CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-113
Agency No.
A208-415-915
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2024**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: PAEZ, M. SMITH, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Qun Chen (“Chen”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for
asylum and withholding of removal. Chen challenges the agency’s adverse
* 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
FEB 22 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-113
credibility determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We
review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence. See Garcia v. Holder, 749
F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th
Cir. 2010)). We deny the petition.
In assessing an adverse credibility determination, we look to the “totality of
the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133,
1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Under the
substantial evidence standard, the agency’s determinations are “conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
Garcia, 749 F.3d at 789 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
Chen alleged that he suffered past persecution and feared future persecution
in China on account of his Christian religion. The agency identified several
inconsistencies between Chen’s credible fear interview, his testimony, and his
corroborating evidence. The agency determined that these inconsistencies, taken
together, “depriv[ed] his claim of the ring of truth” and thus denied his application.
The agency relied on the internal consistency and inherent plausibility of
Chen’s claims in evaluating the totality of the circumstances. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Most notably, Chen provided inconsistent testimony
regarding his Christian beliefs and church attendance. The agency thus had
concerns about the authenticity of Chen’s claimed religiosity. These

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-113
inconsistencies, coupled with other discrepancies regarding the harm that he
suffered, his employment status, and a prior visa application were sufficiently
“specific and cogent” reasons for the adverse credibility determination. See Silva-
Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1186–88 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Shrestha, 736
F.3d at 1044); see also Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 966–67 (9th Cir. 2014)
(upholding an adverse credibility finding based in part on the petitioner’s lack of
detailed testimony about his religious beliefs).
Some of the inconsistencies on which the agency relied were less probative
of Chen’s veracity, but “even minor inconsistencies may have a legitimate impact
on a petitioner’s credibility.” Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959, 961 (9th Cir. 2021)
(quoting Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011)). And although Chen
provided evidence to corroborate his claim, the agency permissibly concluded that
the totality of the circumstances indicated that Chen was not credible.
In sum, “[t]he record does not compel the conclusion that the adverse
credibility determination was erroneous.” Id. at 961. The agency’s denial of
Chen’s asylum and withholding claims is supported by substantial evidence. See
Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --