NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 27 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HONGXIA GUO, No. 17-72299 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-773-489 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 21, 2020** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Hongxia Guo, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum. Here, Guo’s claim is based on the allegation that she was forced to undergo an * 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). abortion in 2012 because Chinese government authorities determined she had violated family planning policy when she became pregnant with her second child while unmarried. The IJ denied this claim due to an adverse credibility determination, which the BIA adopted. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. In making an adverse credibility determination, an IJ must consider “the totality of the circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The BIA reviews that determination under the clearly erroneous standard. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(i). We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, and findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). In this case, the BIA explained its reasoning with “sufficient particularity and clarity,” while also relying on the IJ’s opinion “as a statement of reasons.” Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). We therefore review “the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those reasons.” Id. In other words, “we do not review those parts of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding that the BIA did not identify as ‘most significant’ and 2 did not otherwise mention.”1 Id. Here, the BIA focused on five of the IJ’s adverse credibility findings in affirming the adverse credibility determination. First, regarding Guo’s marriage: In her asylum application, Guo reported that she got married in 1991 and was later widowed. However, in a supplemental statement filed two years later, she admitted that she and her late husband had never legally married because she had been too young. Her testimony was also inconsistent as to whether her parents had attended the wedding banquet. Second, regarding Guo’s household registration certificate: Guo claims to be a widow, but the certificate states that she is divorced. Guo explained that her father had bribed an official to change her household registration status so that her son, born of her ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals