Li v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 21, 2026
• Docket: 25-4297
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIN LI, No. 25-4297 Agency No. Petitioner, A240-325-336 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 17, 2026** Portland, Oregon

Before: OWENS, VANDYKE, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Qin Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal of an Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

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

as here, the BIA incorporates the IJ’s findings by citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. &

N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and adds its own reasoning, we review both decisions.

See Rudnitskyy v. Garland, 82 F.4th 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2023). “We review denials

of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence.” Ani

v. Bondi, 155 F.4th 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2025). “We also review adverse

credibility determinations for substantial evidence.” Id. “Under the substantial

evidence standard, administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id.

(citation omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount

them here. We deny the petition for review.

“The agency may deny asylum [and] withholding of removal . . . because it

deems an applicant’s testimony, under the totality of the circumstances, not to be

credible, and the lack of credible testimony renders the applicant unable to meet

her burden.” Kalulu v. Bondi, 128 F.4th 1009, 1014 (9th Cir. 2024). In assessing

an adverse credibility finding under the REAL ID Act, such as here, we “look to

the ‘totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.’” Alam v. Garland, 11

F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).

“Such factors include, but are not limited to, an applicant’s ‘demeanor, candor, or

responsiveness’ as well as the consistency between an applicant’s statements and

2 25-4297 other evidence in the record.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020)

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).

Here, the agency found Li not credible for a number of reasons, including:

(1) Li testified that she participated in the religious gatherings on her mother-in-

law’s property, but her written statement stated only that she lent the property to

her friend’s Christian group, and she did not adequately explain the

omission/inconsistency; (2) Li did not adequately explain how she was able to loan

her mother-in-law’s property to the Christian group given that she was separated

from her husband and not living on the property; (3) Li testified that her

mistreatment in Chinese police custody caused persistent hearing problems, but her

medical records in the United States indicated that she reported she had no hearing

problems, and she did not adequately explain the inconsistency; and (4) Li testified

that she had two forced abortions by Chinese authorities, but her written statement

discussed only the latter abortion, and Li did not adequately explain the

omission/inconsistency. Because these inconsistencies are not “mere trivial

error[s],” the record does not compel the conclusion that the agency erred in

finding Li not credible. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010).1

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

1 Li’s CAT claim is not before this court because Li does not meaningfully raise it on appeal, and the BIA found that she had waived it.

3 25-4297