United States v. 2020-02-18 | 18-73415 | TIANJIE ZHANG V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIANJIE ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73415
Agency No. A205-175-826
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 5, 2020
**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Although credibility findings should be made by the trier of fact, some
differences in statements made at different times are too trivial to be considered
legally significant. See, e.g., Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011).
In spite of that, the record supports the denial of relief on adverse credibility
FILED
FEB 18 2020
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).

grounds. Zhang’s testimony was inconsistent on the date on which his parents paid
a fine to effectuate his release, the location of his arrest, and the number of other
arrestees present at the time of his arrest. While each of these alone may not have
provided sufficient grounds for the BIA to deem him non-credible, together these
material inconsistencies relate to the core of his claim for asylum and “deprive
[the] claim of the requisite ring of truth.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th
Cir. 2011) (quotations and citations omitted) (ellipsis in original).
Having properly found Zhang to be non-credible, the BIA also had
substantial evidence to deny Zhang’s claim for CAT relief, which was dependent
on the same facts. In addition, Zhang did not establish that he personally faced a
likelihood of future torture based on the independent documentary evidence alone.
See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2