LIQUAN LING, AKA Liqiang Lin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIQUAN LING, AKA Liqiang Lin,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72303
Agency No. A099-668-292
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 13, 2012
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Liquan Ling, aka Liqiang Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of
removal. The BIA denied relief on the basis of an adverse credibility finding.
FILED
JUN 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Because Ling’s asylum application was filed in June 2006, his case is governed by
the credibility and corroboration standards set forth in the REAL ID Act. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings, including adverse credibility
findings. Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. The
BIA identified four reasons for its finding. As long as one of these reasons is
supported by substantial evidence, we are bound to accept the adverse credibility
finding. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004). Two of the reasons for
the BIA’s adverse credibility determination were Ling’s omissions of the 2001
incident and the material details regarding the 2005 incident from his asylum
application. These omissions “went to the core” of his claim of persecution. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material alterations in the
applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility
finding.”); see also Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010)
(concluding omissions from asylum application of a political demonstration and
petitioners’ participation in it were significant where the information was crucial to
establishing persecution claim). Ling was confronted with these omissions and the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
BIA reasonably rejected Ling’s explanation. See Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044,
1055 (9th Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination based upon Ling’s failure to provide any corroborating evidence of
his mistreatment. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[W]here
the IJ has reason to question the applicant’s credibility, and the applicant fails to
produce non-duplicative, material, easily available corroborating evidence and
provides no credible explanation for such failure, an adverse credibility finding
will withstand appellate review.”). Accordingly, in the absence of credible
testimony, we deny the petition as to Ling’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because we deny the petition on credibility grounds, we need not address the
BIA’s alternate holdings that Ling would not be eligible for asylum or withholding
of removal if he were found credible.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --