NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YUBAO WANG; NAITONG JIANG; No. 16-70769 YINGZE MENG, Agency Nos. A205-776-260 Petitioners, A205-776-261 A205-776-262 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 18, 2022** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: KLEINFELD, D.M. FISHER,*** and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Yubao Wang, Naitong Jiang, and Yingze Meng, are a family of natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China. Wang, the lead respondent * 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 D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. before the agency, submitted an asylum application that included his spouse, Jiang, and his stepson, Meng, as dependents. They challenge the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to dismiss their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition. Petitioners argue that the IJ erred in finding that their testimony lacked credibility and that the BIA erred in upholding the finding. “[W]e review adverse credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). As Petitioners’ asylum application was filed after May 11, 2005, the REAL ID Act standards governing adverse credibility decisions control. Id. at 1039–40. Under the REAL ID Act, an IJ, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” may base a credibility determination on an applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the “inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account,” “the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements,” and “the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 1 Petitioners have waived their CAT claim by failing to raise it in their opening brief. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). 2 Petitioners contest the IJ’s statement that “the tenor of the [Petitioners’] declaration . . . suggests that [it] was created or edited by a person with an eye toward assisting the respondents in obtaining asylum in the United States.” Because the Petitioners did not disclose a preparer, the IJ found the preparation of the application “casts doubt upon the bona fides of the past persecution claim and the veracity of the testimony.” Though the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s credibility determination, the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision and did not rely on this specific finding in upholding the IJ’s credibility determination. Thus, we may not rely …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals