Hui Liang v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUI LIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70493
Agency No. A098-452-500
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Hui Liang (Liang) appeals the decision by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
FILED
JAN 20 2016
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).
1

-- 1 of 3 --

1. Because we review the BIA’s decision rather than that of the Immigration
Judge (IJ), we do not address any challenge to the IJ’s findings. See Vitug v.
Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013), as
amended. The BIA relied on inconsistencies in Liang’s account of the events
resulting in his detention and alleged persecution. These events “go to the heart”
of Liang’s case. Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336-37 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting
that under the pre-REAL ID Act requirements, inconsistencies must “go to the
heart” of the petitioner’s case–the events underlying the claim of persecution). The
BIA noted inconsistencies regarding whether the police surrounded the church,
were in front of the church, were getting out of a vehicle, or were across the street
when Liang arrived. Liang changed other details of his story throughout the course
of his testimony, including whether he yelled for the attendees to run, rushed into
the church to warn the attendees to run, or blocked the door so the police could not
enter. Liang also testified that he was knocked unconscious during his first
detention, but did not state in his written statement that he was knocked
unconscious. See id. at 1335-36 (noting that the written statement failed to
2

-- 2 of 3 --

mention a “significant” allegation). The adverse credibility determination
supported by substantial evidence forecloses Liang’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
3. Liang’s CAT claim is predicated on the same testimony that the BIA
found not credible. Because Liang points to no other evidence to support his CAT
claim, that claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --