NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YING LI, No. 18-71322 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-742-097 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 5, 2020** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Ying Li (“Li”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Li argues that the IJ’s * 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). adverse credibility determination, as affirmed by the BIA, is not supported by substantial evidence. “We review ‘denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Garcia- Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014)). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, see Huang, 744 F.3d at 1152, and we deny the petition. I. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. “Under the REAL ID Act, which applies here, there is no presumption that an applicant for relief is credible, and the IJ is authorized to base an adverse credibility determination on the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.” Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Although adverse credibility determinations need not be based on inconsistencies that “go ‘to the heart of [petitioner’s] claim,’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 918 (9th Cir. 2009)), an inconsistency supporting an adverse credibility determination “should not be a mere trivial error 2 such as a misspelling.” Id. at 1044 (citing Hassan v. Holder, 571 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 2009)). Li argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination erroneously relied on inconsistencies between her testimony and a hospital discharge summary regarding the number of her pregnancies and her abortion history. Li testified she had been pregnant twice. The first pregnancy resulted in a forced abortion in China, and the other resulted in the premature birth of her daughter in the United States. In contrast, the hospital discharge summary reported that Li had been pregnant four times, which resulted in one preterm birth and three elective abortions. Li claimed that she was eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because she was forced ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals