Zuchao He 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.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZUCHAO HE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72383
Agency No. A099-670-043
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 12, 2013**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Zuchao He petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal and denying his application for asylum and
FILED
FEB 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition for review.
Petitioner challenges the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. The
standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act of
2005 apply. See Pub. L. No. 109–13, div. B, 119 Stat. 231 (2005); see also
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010).
We review the BIA’s adverse credibility determination for substantial
evidence. Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, the BIA
supported its adverse credibility determination with “specific and cogent reasons”
based on specific instances in the record, Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1042–43 (internal
quotation marks omitted), including Petitioner’s omissions from his asylum
application, his wife and her mother’s omissions of the same events in their
statements, and Petitioner’s unsatisfactory explanation for the omissions. “[E]ven
minor inconsistencies, in proper circumstances, will support an adverse credibility
determination,” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043 n.4; see also 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (explaining that inaccuracies may be considered “without regard
to whether . . . [they] go[] to the heart of the applicant’s claim”); Tamang v.
Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1093–94 (9th Cir. 2010), and Petitioner’s omissions were
material. Petitioner omitted a series of dramatic events that would have provided

-- 2 of 3 --

3
strong evidence for his asylum claim. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183
(9th Cir. 2008); Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254–55 (9th Cir. 2003).
Moreover, Petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the
omissions. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044 (explaining that “petitioner’s
explanation for the inconsistency, if any, should be considered in weighing
credibility”). Petitioner’s claim on appeal that the details he omitted were not
legally relevant at the time he filed his asylum application is unavailing. Cf. Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004). The immigration judge provided
Petitioner with the opportunity to explain the omissions and did not find the
explanation persuasive.
Overall, the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence based on the totality of the circumstances. 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040. The record does not compel us to
conclude otherwise. Morgan, 529 F.3d at 1206.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --