Wei Zheng v. Merrick Garland, 17-71512

Wei (Mrs.) and Xiaowei (Mr.) Zheng, married citizens of China, applied for asylum and withholding of removal in the U.S.; Mr. Zheng was a derivative of Mrs. Zheng’s application.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) found both petitioners not credible based on inconsistent and false testimony and denied asylum and withholding; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, adopting the IJ’s reasoning.
Mrs. Zheng claimed past persecution tied to China’s family‑planning policies: forced IUD insertion and a forced abortion; the agency found her testimony vague and contradicted by documentary gaps.
Mr. Zheng claimed multiple detentions for protesting family‑planning enforcement; his testimony conflicted with a fine receipt and he gave inconsistent statements to immigration officials.
Petitioners offered explanations (e.g., misunderstanding questions; possible scrivener’s error) that the agency rejected; some explanations were not raised before the agency and thus were not considered on appeal.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency’s adverse‑credibility findings for substantial evidence and denied the petition; the Convention Against Torture claim was waived for failure to raise it.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the agency’s adverse‑credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence	Petitioners argued testimony inconsistencies were misunderstandings or minor and not dispositive	Agency relied on false/untruthful testimony, vague/undetailed accounts, and inconsistencies with documents	Court held the adverse‑credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence and upheld denial of relief
Credibility of Mrs. Zheng’s account of forced IUD and abortion	Mrs. Zheng said she misunderstood visa‑questioning and that gaps in detail were innocent	Agency pointed to false statements about visa truthfulness and unexplained, undetailed testimony on key facts	Court sustained agency’s rejection of her explanations and adverse credibility finding
Credibility of Mr. Zheng’s detention/release timeline	Mr. Zheng now suggests a possible scrivener’s error on the fine receipt	Agency relied on the inconsistency between his testimony and the fine receipt and his prior false statements to officials	Court held the inconsistency supported adverse credibility and refused to consider the new scrivener’s‑error argument because it was unexhausted
Consideration of Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim	Petitioners did not argue CAT relief before agency or this court	Government argued CAT claim was forfeited by failure to raise it	Court treated CAT claim as waived and did not address it

Garcia‑Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 2018) (reviewing BIA and IJ decisions together when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2020) (factual findings and adverse‑credibility determinations reviewed for substantial evidence)
Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 2013) (standards for reviewing adverse credibility findings)
Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2017) (adverse credibility upheld unless any reasonable adjudicator compelled to conclude otherwise)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (REAL ID Act permits reliance on unresponsive, undetailed, and inconsistent testimony)
Cortez‑Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not accept unpersuasive explanations for inconsistencies)
Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support adverse credibility)
Samayoa‑Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2009) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider issues not exhausted before the BIA)
Martinez‑Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1996) (failure to raise an argument results in waiver)