NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 15 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHUN FENG, No. 15-70479 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-565-850 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN,*** District Judge. Chun Feng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the * 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). *** The Honorable Stanley Allen Bastian, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial, based on an adverse credibility finding, of claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review the agency’s determination for substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and do not recite them here. We deny the petition. 1. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on Feng’s inconsistent statements and misrepresentations in her visa application. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014). Feng made numerous inconsistent statements in her testimony before the IJ. Most notably, she initially stated that she came to the United States to flee persecution in China, but she later admitted that she came to the United States to visit her son. This inconsistency was deepened by Feng’s vacillating statements on when she learned about the availability of asylum—first stating that she had heard about it in China, but later stating that she learned about asylum when she read about it in a newspaper while in the United States. Feng also misrepresented her position and salary on her visa application in hopes of increasing her odds of obtaining a visa, which the IJ noted showed a propensity for dishonesty. And Feng did not list any employment between 1988 and 2006 on her visa application, which contradicted her testimony 2 that she was forced to have an abortion after her pregnancy was discovered as part of an annual screening conducted by her employer in 2003. In the absence of credible testimony from Feng, the IJ and BIA reasonably determined that the remaining evidence did not establish her eligibility for relief. Feng provided certificates showing that she had an abortion in 2003 and that she had an IUD placed about a month later. But there was no evidence—other than Feng’s properly discounted testimony—that the procedures shown by these documents were involuntary. 2. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals