Case: 17-60581 Document: 00514613260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-60581 FILED August 23, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DANLI YANG, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 872 460 Before DAVIS, HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Danli Yang petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Yang’s application is based upon claims that she was (1) subjected to a forced abortion and lost her job at a coffee house because she became pregnant out of wedlock, * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-60581 Document: 00514613260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2018 No. 17-60581 and (2) (a) arrested, detained, beaten, and fined for attending a Christian home church on the evening of December 24, 2010, and (b) prevented from attending the home church or contacting its members after her release. Because the BIA adopted and relied upon the IJ’s decision, we may review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). We review for substantial evidence the findings that Yang is not credible, see Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-40 (5th Cir. 2009), and that she is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, see Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this standard, we may not reverse a factual finding unless the evidence compels it. Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Yang must carry the burden of demonstrating that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). Even if Yang’s arguments are deemed pro se and afforded liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they fail for the following reasons. The IJ and the BIA “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Although Yang presented some documentary evidence supporting her version of events, we cannot say that the evidence compels the conclusion that she is credible under the totality of the circumstances; the BIA based its contrary finding upon numerous vague and inconsistent statements made by Yang during her asylum interview and hearing testimony regarding, inter alia, the whereabouts of her brother, her educational history, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals