Huicong Liang v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

12-72812Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit11 avr. 2014

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUICONG LIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72812
Agency No. A087-819-343
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Huicong Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
FILED
APR 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Liang’s
request for oral argument.

-- 1 of 2 --

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Liang’s Mexican work visa, which was
renewed in 2006, and his testimony that he fears Chinese officials in Mexico and
has not returned to Mexico since 2003. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). The
agency was not compelled to accept Liang’s explanation for this inconsistency.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of
credible testimony, Liang’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-72812 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.