FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YANPING LIU, No. 16-70872 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-856-819 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 8, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON, MELLOY,*** and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Yanping Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of her * 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 Michael J. Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the order of the immigration judge (IJ) pursuant to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), and expresses no disagreement with the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s order as if it were that of the BIA. See Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). Liu challenges the agency’s adverse credibility determination on the basis that the agency did not provide “meaningful notice of” and a “reasonable opportunity to explain” the significant similarities between the affidavit of another asylum applicant and her declaration. See Matter of R-K-K, 26 I. & N. Dec. 658, 661-62 (BIA 2015). However, Liu received notice of the similarities between the two affidavits during the hearing, and the IJ provided four months for Liu to investigate whether her declaration had been plagiarized or whether the issue arose from a formulaic translation (particularly as the same translator worked on both declarations), and provide an explanation in her closing brief. See id. In addition, the IJ provided other “specific and cogent reasons” unrelated to the affidavit similarities to support the adverse credibility determination, including 2 that Liu did not obtain medical evidence of her previous IUD insertion, removal, and abortion upon arriving in the United States, but managed to obtain medical records from the hospital that administered the abortion in China. The IJ also relied on Liu’s evasive demeanor when faced with challenging questions, and the record supports this finding. For example, the IJ identified that Liu did not directly answer how she would have more children in the United States even though she knew her husband would remain in China. The IJ considered Liu’s demeanor while explaining her nineteen-year delay in fleeing China. Demeanor findings are entitled to “special deference.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1154 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals