TIANJIE ZHANG V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-73415 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIANJIE ZHANG, No. Petitioner, 18-73415 Agency No. A205-175-826 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. 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 * 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

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.