NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YANBO ZHU; HAIJIU JING; YUCHAO No. 17-72366 JING, Petitioners, Agency No. A200−266−535 A200−266−536 v. A200−266−537 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 20, 2020** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Yanbo Zhu, her spouse, and her child, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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). protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Zhu also seeks review of the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review for substantial evidence “denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief” as well as “factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). To reverse, we “must determine that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Because “the BIA reviewed the IJ’s credibility-based decision for clear error and ‘relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of reasons’ but ‘did not merely provide a boilerplate opinion,’” we “review here the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s . . . decision in support of those reasons.” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)). Here, the IJ identified, and the BIA relied on, specific instances of inconsistencies, lack of detail, and omissions in Zhu’s testimony. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (observing that inconsistency, candor, and lack of detail are all relevant factors under the totality of the 1 Zhu’s spouse and child have a derivative asylum claim through Zhu, and therefore their claims rise or fall with hers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). 2 circumstances approach). For example, the IJ found an inconsistency between Zhu’s testimony and the evidentiary record with respect to the removal of the allegedly forcibly inserted intrauterine device (“IUD”). Zhu testified that she had experienced severe side effects and had been self-medicating with pain relievers following the IUD’s insertion, but, the record shows that she waited approximately nine months after entry into the United States to have the IUD removed. When asked about the delay, Zhu was unable to provide an explanation. Nothing in the record compels a conclusion that the adverse credibility finding was erroneous. While Zhu argues that there are alternative explanations for the inconsistencies, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals