KAIDA ZHANG V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 16-73802 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JAN 22 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAIDA ZHANG, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73802 Agency No. A206-543-155 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted January 10, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: WATFORD and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District Judge. Kaida Zhang (“Petitioner”), a citizen and native of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture Act (“CAT”) on adverse credibility grounds. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. affirm. “[W]e review adverse credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). The court “must uphold the [] adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011). “Because credibility determinations are findings of fact by the [Immigration Judge], they ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. at 1087 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Based first on the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) demeanor findings and second on his analysis of Petitioner’s testimony regarding the way Petitioner obtained notarized documents prior to his return to the United States, we find that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. The IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for disbelieving Petitioner’s testimony because of Petitioner’s demeanor while testifying. See id. at 1088 (“The IJ ‘must . . . offer specific, cogent reasons for any stated disbelief.’” (citation omitted)). The IJ also provided specific and cogent reasons for disbelieving Petitioner’s explanations regarding certain documents he brought to the United States on his second trip where Petitioner did not need the documents to enter the United States on his first trip only a few months earlier and denied planning on applying for asylum during the second trip. Petitioner’s remaining evidence did not independently establish his claims for 2 asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. PETITION DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
