You Peng Ni v. Garland

• Docket Number: 20-70446
• Decision Date: 25 August 2023
• Parties: YOU PENG NI, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

1

YOU PENG NI, Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 20-70446

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 25, 2023

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted June 7, 2023 Honolulu, Hawaii

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A215-825-532

Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM ^[*]

You Peng Ni, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Because the BIA, citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A. 1994), adopted the IJ's decision and provided its own

2

additional analysis, we review both the BIA and IJ decisions. Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

We review the agency's adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence "based on the 'totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.'" Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Our "only question . . . is whether any reasonable adjudicator could have found as the agency did." Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S.Ct. 1669, 1678 (2021). And a "healthy measure of deference" is owed to the agency's credibility determinations. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). Ni thus bears "a substantial burden" to show the BIA's denial of relief on adverse credibility grounds should be reversed. Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021).

In our view, the following factors suffice to find that substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination:

First, the IJ determined that Ni had "not shown a willingness to be truthful with U.S. authorities" because of omissions in the information Ni provided to the IJ about the conditions of his release. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ granted Ni's bond on the condition that Ni must live with a particular family member-his bond sponsor-at her home in Honolulu. Ni stayed there for about a week before moving to another Hawaiian island. Several months

3

later at a hearing, the IJ told Ni that he must report any changes of address, but Ni affirmed his address in Honolulu and said nothing about moving at the time. Ni did not disclose his change of address to the IJ until six months later. Given Ni's lack of candor about following the conditions of his bond release, substantial evidence supports the agency's determination.

Second, Ni also submitted a declaration in support of his claim for relief from an individual named "Sister He" that conflicts with Ni's testimony. Sister He stated that Ni was arrested and heavily beaten, that she was fortunate not to have attended the service on that...