Opinion
23-2185
01-25-2024
NAN ZHENG, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Submitted January 16, 2024 [*]
Petition for Review of an Order from the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A097-838-612
Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge DORIS L. pRYOR, Circuit Judge
ORDER
Nan Zheng, a citizen of China, overstayed his student visa and sought asylum based on persecution he alleged he suffered because of his Christian faith. After a hearing, the immigration judge made an adverse credibility determination and denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Zheng's appeal. Zheng petitions this court for review, arguing that the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence. We deny the petition.
Zheng arrived in Seattle, Washington, on a student visa in mid-2006 and later that year moved to Tomah, Wisconsin. The Department of Homeland Security discovered that Zheng was working at a restaurant under a false identity and without authorization. In 2011, DHS placed Zheng in removal proceedings and charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i). Zheng conceded his removability but applied for immigration relief-asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture-based on religious persecution.
His written application contained some discrepancies, particularly regarding the genesis of his interest in Christianity and the nature of the persecution he alleged to have suffered. For instance, on his application, in response to a question about belonging to a religious organization in his home country, he wrote, "I was a devout Christian in China." But in his attached statement, he explained that he became interested in Christianity several years after arriving in the United States, in 2011. In response to another question about his experience with a foreign criminal justice system, he wrote, "I was arrested, detained and mistreated by Chinese government for my Christian faith." But his attached statement described only an episode in 2012, in which his parents (in the northeastern city of Shenyang) were arrested by public security officers for possessing overseas Bibles that he had sent them. According to Zheng, his parents were detained for eight days at a local police station, "suffered a lot of mistreatment," were "threatened," and told to "convince me to go back to turn myself in" or otherwise "they will punish me severely." Zheng also attached a statement from his mother attesting to the arrest and beating.
At a hearing before an immigration judge, Zheng clarified the nature of his claim. He testified through an interpreter that he had been introduced to Christianity in 2011 through an older Chinese colleague at his workplace, that he attended Tomah Baptist Church, that he often talked about religion during frequent video calls with his parents in China, that he was baptized only five days before the hearing, and that he fears he would be punished for his faith if he returned to China. On cross-examination, the government elicited acknowledgments from Zheng that (1) his prior application for citizenship through his ex-wife was denied because of inconsistent testimony they had provided to an immigration officer; (2) he could not obtain a statement from the woman who introduced him to Christianity because she had since returned to China; (3) he had no documentation corroborating the injuries and detention experienced by his parents in China; (4) he did not understand the term "Baptist" or the meaning of the "Holy Trinity"; and (5) he was unaware of the statement on his written application that he was arrested in China for his Christianity (he disclaimed that statement and said that the application had been prepared by his lawyer).
The immigration judge found Zheng not to be credible and denied all relief. The immigration judge highlighted four reasons: (1) a pattern of dishonesty demonstrated by inaccuracies and omissions in Zheng's asylum application, his unauthorized employment under a false name, and inconsistencies in his I-130 application for citizenship; (2) Zheng's lack of familiarity with "basic tenets of the faith"; (3) the "highly convenient" timing of his conversion, just days before the hearing; and (4) the lack of reasonably available corroborating evidence for his claims that his parents were arrested and assaulted in China, such as hospital records, photographs, police reports, arrest records, or receipt for the fines assertedly paid. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding as not clearly erroneous and dismissed the appeal.
In his petition for review, Zheng primarily challenges the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding. He argues that the immigration judge, in characterizing his conversion to Christianity as opportunistic, misconstrued and discounted his testimony at the hearing, the testimony presented by his pastor, and records of his participation in the church. Zheng also contends that the evidence of his fear of future persecution in China was amply supported by his mother's affidavit, and that the immigration judge unreasonably demanded further evidence of persecution.
Zheng faces a steep burden. We may overturn a credibility determination only if we conclude the immigration judge and the Board did not support their conclusions with specific evidence, and the facts compel a different result. Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 922, 925 (7th Cir. 2018).
The record does not compel reversal of the adverse credibility finding. Even if Zheng's conversion were assumed to be sincere, the immigration judge highlighted valid reasons to disbelieve him. The judge, for instance, pointed to one material discrepancy between Zheng's testimony and written submissions-over the timing of his interest in Christianity (his signed application stated that he practiced Christianity in China, but he testified at the hearing that he started practicing in the United States). The immigration judge also appropriately alluded to Zheng's "less than forthright" interaction with immigration authorities-his use of a false name and move across the country to obtain work, in violation of his student visa, as well as the U.S. government's prior rejection of his citizenship application based on inconsistent testimony between him and his ex-wife.
Zheng also argues that his mother's letter was sufficient corroborating evidence of his claim, and that it was unreasonable of the immigration judge to expect his parents "to get evidence of their persecution from the persecutor." But this argument dodges the finding made by the immigration judge-that Zheng reasonably could have supplied other forms of corroboration such as hospital records, photographs, or a receipt for the fines allegedly paid. And even if the mother's account corroborated some aspects of Zheng's testimony, it does not undermine the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding. Santashbekov v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 836, 840 (7th Cir. 2016) (generalized letter from asylum applicant's political-party supervisor insufficient to overcome material inconsistencies in applicant's testimony).
Because Zheng's burden for obtaining asylum is less than for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture, his requests for these other forms of relief necessarily fail, too. See Alvarenga-Flores, 901 F.3d at 926.
The petition for review is DENIED.
[*] We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. p. 34(a)(2)(C).