Zi Yang v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 276 3d Cir. 2002 . The IJ adequately supported her finding that

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2706
ZI YANG,
Petitioner
vs.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________
ON REVIEW OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(BIA No. A79-424-558)
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 14, 2006
Before: SMITH, WEIS and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: August 3, 2006)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner is a native of China who came to the United States in 2001. He
applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Convention Against

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Torture. After a hearing, an ALJ rejected all of the petitioner’s contentions and ordered
him to be deported. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed the IJ’s
decision.
Petitioner testified that he was married in 1986 and has one son. In
September 1990, his wife was forced to undergo an involuntary abortion in China. When
petitioner appeared at the scene and objected, the police were called. Petitioner was not
detained, but allegedly spent the following decade in hiding and away from his family
because he feared reprisal for his actions. Several years after the abortion, petitioner and
his wife divorced in China.
Petitioner contends that if he was forced to return to China, he would be
fined and imprisoned as a result of his resistence to the abortion. The IJ found petitioner
not credible as a result of numerous implausible allegations about his activities from 1990
onward.
The IJ gave a thorough and persuasive account of her reasons for refusing
to believe the petitioner. Adverse credibility findings receive substantial deference on
appeal if they are “supported by specific cogent reasons.” Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266,
276 (3d Cir. 2002). The IJ adequately supported her finding that petitioner did not testify
credibly. Although petitioner argues that the IJ’s analysis concentrated on collateral
matters, we disagree. Her observations were logically tied to the more controversial
points of the petitioner’s testimony, and furnished a sound basis for her findings.
We agree with the BIA that petitioner has not met his burden of proof and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
accordingly we deny the petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --