Yabin Bi v. Merrick Garland


NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YABIN BI, No. 20-70847 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-187-728 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Yabin Bi, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the convention against torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on Bi’s demeanor and inconsistencies as to whether she had an IUD inserted after her forced abortion and the preparation of the notes she brought to her asylum interview. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Bi’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Bi’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Bi’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Bi does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. 2 20-70847 We do not consider the materials Bi references in her opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 20-70847 20-70847 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Yabin Bi v. Merrick Garland 22 December 2021 Agency Unpublished cf7069a865e561e782b398b4cce281b72290b4d8

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals