MEMORANDUM ***
Yan Jun Sang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judges (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIAs conclusion that the IJ did not clearly err in making its adverse credibility finding. The IJ provided five “specific and cogent reason[s],” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010), supporting its determination that Sang was not credible: (1) Sang repeated the same phrases in response to questioning, suggesting he was regurgitating a memorized statement; (2) Sangs oral testimony conflicted with his written declaration, and both were also plagued by internal inconsistences
1
; (3) Sang provided no documentary evidence, such as affidavits or declarations from relatives or fellow church members
2
; (4) Sangs claimed fear of future persecution was undermined by his admission that he voluntarily returned to China twice following trips to Japan and the United States; and (5) Sangs demeanor and nonresponsive testimony also undermined his credibility. When confronted with discrepancies, he “hesitated,” “rock[ed] back and forth,” and “simply recit[ed] what was already in his declaration or what he previously stated.”
We “must uphold an adverse credibility determination ‘so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence.’ ” Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011)). Here, the IJs cited reasons afford ample support for the IJs adverse credibility determination, upon which the BIA relied. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
Given Sangs glaring credibility issues, substantial evidence supports the BIAs conclusion that Sang did not demonstrate his eligibility for withholding of removal or relief under the CAT.
3
See id.; Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006).
DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. For example, Sang provided at least three different dates that he claimed to have been first introduced to Christianity. In his written declaration, Sang attests that a friend “led him to the Church of San Francisco” after arriving in the United States in 2009 because he was “depressed” and “unhappy.” On direct examination, however, Sang testified that he first joined the Christian church in July 2013. Even still, on cross examination, Sang testified that he began “spread[ing] Gospel” in China in 2007. When asked about these conflicting dates, Sang could not provide a cogent explanation.
2
. Sang did provide copies of undated photos from his baptism, which had purportedly taken place two days before his hearing before the IJ.
3
. On appeal, Sang argues that the “BIA erred in denying [his] application for asylum.” However, Sang failed to challenge before the BIA the IJs determination that he was statutorily barred from applying for asylum. Thus the claim is deemed waived, and we need not address it here.