NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TINGTING CONG, No. 15-70741 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-252-663 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2023** Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Tingting Cong, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We grant in part and deny in part the petition. “Where, as here, the Board incorporates the IJ’s decision into its own without citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), this court will review the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated.” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). We review adverse credibility determinations and denials of CAT relief for substantial evidence. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). 1. Substantial evidence does not support at least one of the three grounds on which the BIA relied in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. First, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on a purported inconsistency about the method of forced abortion—the procedure forming the basis for Cong’s claim. In evaluating any inconsistency, the IJ should consider “the petitioner's explanation for a perceived inconsistency [] and other record evidence that sheds light on whether there is in fact an inconsistency at all.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). “If the noncitizen offers an explanation that is reasonable 2 and plausible, the IJ has to provide a specific and cogent reason for rejecting the explanation.” Barseghyan v. Garland, 39 F.4th 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). But here, neither the BIA nor the IJ gave a reason for rejecting Cong’s explanation for the inconsistency: that the hospital may have falsified the document stating she received an abortion by medication to “cover up their crime” and to make people believe that she had the abortion voluntarily. The IJ only mentioned Cong’s explanation in passing without providing a reason for rejecting it, and the BIA only provided a general statement that Cong’s challenge to the IJ’s findings …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals