NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JINXIANG BAO, No. 18-71824 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-004-953 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 16, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, MILLER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Jinxiang Bao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Bao alleges that she was persecuted by the Chinese government for * 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). practicing Tibetan Buddhism. She claims that on at least one occasion in 2013, the police detained her for eight days, questioned her about her Buddhist affiliation, and beat her. The immigration judge and the Board found Bao not to be credible and concluded that without credible testimony, Bao could not satisfy her burden of proof. Bao now petitions for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). Under that standard, “[t]he agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). In assessing an adverse credibility finding, we look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The Board identified six inconsistencies and omissions to support its adverse credibility determination, and Bao challenges each of them in this court. We need not decide whether all of the reasons invoked by the Board properly support its conclusion because we conclude that the following justifications identified by the Board, taken together, amply support the adverse credibility determination. See 2 Alam, 11 F.4th at 1136–37 & n.1. First, in her hearing before the immigration judge, Bao testified to new allegations that she omitted in her initial asylum application and interview with the asylum officer. At her hearing, Bao testified that in 2013, police officers threatened to throw her from a window and make her death look like a suicide. Bao also testified that on a separate occasion in 2005, police detained her for several hours and questioned her about her connection to Buddhism. Neither allegation appeared in her earlier statements. Because these omissions “are not ‘details,’ but new allegations that tell a ‘much different—and more compelling—story of persecution than [Bao’s] initial application,’” they can support …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals