Chen v. Garland

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YUNQIN CHEN; WEILI CHEN, No. 22-268 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A209-786-070 A208-908-624 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 9, 2023 ** Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Yunqin and Weili Chen, natives and citizens of China, seek review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Yunqin’s lead applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence,

* 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). Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), we deny the petition. 1

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.

“We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, and must

uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Singh v. Holder,

643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011).

Yunqin does not dispute that there are several inconsistencies between her

testimony and other evidence in the record. But she argues that the

inconsistencies were trivial, and that the BIA erred in rejecting her explanations

for the inconsistencies. For instance, Yunqin asserts that the inconsistency

between her testimony that she did not travel outside of China before 2014 and

evidence of her arrest in Singapore prior to 2014 is trivial. But this discrepancy

was not so trivial that it “ha[d] no bearing on [Yunqin’s] veracity.” Shrestha v.

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010). And the BIA was not required to

accept Yunqin’s explanation for this inconsistency. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th

954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that the BIA is not compelled to accept a

petitioner’s explanation even if the explanation is reasonable).

The discrepancies between Yunqin’s testimony about who attended her

baptism and other evidence in the record also support the adverse credibility

determination. Again, the BIA was not required to accept Yunqin’s explanations

1 Although Yunqin raised a CAT claim before the IJ, she did not meaningfully challenge the IJ’s denial of the claim before the BIA. Thus, the issue is not properly before us for review. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).

2 for these discrepancies. See id. And the BIA did not err in rejecting Yunqin’s

argument that faulty translating caused various discrepancies between her first

and second personal statements because Yunqin testified that she understood the

questions asked by the interpreter and reviewed her first personal statement in

Mandarin.

Furthermore, Yunqin admitted she provided false information when she

applied for three non-immigrant visas. Because the record reflects that Chen’s

false statements were unrelated to “escaping immediate danger or gaining entry

into the United States,” they provided a legitimate basis for the agency’s adverse

credibility determination. Singh, 643 F.3d at 1181. These inconsistencies

constitute substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s adverse credibility

determination, and therefore we do not reach Yunqin’s arguments relating to

other inconsistencies the BIA identified. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d

532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

The BIA concluded that “no other credible evidence independently”

carried Yunqin’s burden of establishing eligibility for relief, and she has not

shown that the record compels a contrary conclusion. See Wang, 861 F.3d

at 1009. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.