NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAI LAN HAN, No. 16-70555 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-938-478 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 12, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,*** District Judge. Petitioner Hai Han (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of an Immigration Judge * 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 David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “The decision that an alien has not established eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is reviewed for substantial evidence.” Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). Additionally, “factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations,” are reviewed for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the deferential substantial evidence standard, unless the evidence compels a conclusion otherwise, we must affirm the agency’s decision. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding as to Petitioner. The REAL ID Act permits the agency to base an adverse credibility determination on the “totality of the circumstances,” which can include an “applicant’s responsiveness, consistency between written and oral statements, the internal consistency of those statements, and any inaccuracies or falsehoods.” Garcia, 749 F.3d at 789 (quoting Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010)). As the agency noted, Petitioner’s testimony was internally inconsistent, was inconsistent with documentary evidence, and lacked important details. To support 1 Petitioner only explicitly challenges the denial of asylum and specifically disclaims any challenge to the CAT denial. 2 Petitioner’s claims of persecution under the one child policy and religious persecution, she gave inconsistent testimony on when her pregnancies and alleged forced abortions occurred, when she was allegedly arrested for her religion, how many times and where she was sexually assaulted, and who found her and transported her to the hospital following her alleged suicide attempt. Regarding Petitioner’s claims of persecution under the one child policy, she initially testified that she experienced her third pregnancy in 1992, she later stated that her third pregnancy took place in 1994, and when asked about the abortion for her third pregnancy, she stated that the forced abortion of her third pregnancy took place in 1994. Further, Petitioner did not mention multiple pregnancies or forced abortions in her declaration—her declaration mentioned only having …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals