Li v. Blanche

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIANG LI; FANG QIU; L. L., No. 25-770 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A245-207-432 A245-207-433 v. A245-207-434 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 30, 2026**

Before: N.R. SMITH, BUMATAY, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Fang Qiu, Qiang Li, and their minor daughter,1 natives and citizens of

China, petition for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals

* 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). 1 Ms. Qiu is the lead Petitioner. Ms. Qui’s spouse and their minor daughter seek asylum as derivative beneficiaries of Ms. Qui’s asylum application and did not file separate applications for relief. (“BIA”), dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order, which

denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In its decision, the BIA adopted the IJ’s

denial of Petitioners’ asylum and withholding applications based on an adverse

credibility determination. The BIA also determined that Petitioners failed to

meaningfully challenge the IJ’s finding that the objective evidence of record does

not support a claim that Petitioners would be tortured in the future. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–

45 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports

the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The agency supported its adverse

credibility determination with numerous specific and cogent reasons, including: (1)

Ms. Qui’s impatient and evasive demeanor in testifying; (2) inconsistencies

between medical documents and Ms. Qui’s testimony regarding dates and

addresses for her forced abortion and contraceptive insertion; (3) Ms. Qui’s

omission from her asylum application of her Beijing address and the calls she

received from Family Planning Officers; (4) the inherent implausibility of

returning to the same hospital (where Ms. Qui underwent a forced abortion) for

2 25-770 later pregnancy care; (5) Ms. Qui’s failure to retain any records of the 50,000 Yuan

fine payment for her third child, while retaining older records of the 3,000 Yuan

fine payment for first child; and (6) a lack of supporting documentation for her

petition, such as authorization from Family Planning Office for the IUD removal

and for her to have a second child; Ms. Qui’s identification card—the source of

alleged address errors in other documents; or a declaration from Ms. Qui’s mother-

in-law, whose warning about Family Planning Officers’ inquires allegedly

instigated Petitioners’ flight from China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)

(explaining what the agency may consider in determining credibility);

Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926–27 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding substantial

evidence supported adverse credibility determination where petitioner testified

inconsistently and implausibly, as well as omitted important details); Manes v.

Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263–65 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding substantial evidence

supported adverse credibility determination where IJ provided “specific, first-hand

observations” of witnesses demeanor and inconsistency between applicant’s

testimony and documentary evidence undermined credibility).

Petitioners’ arguments in support of credibility are at best plausible

alternative interpretations of the record evidence; they do not compel a conclusion

contrary to that of the agency. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 790–91 (9th

Cir. 2014) (“[Petitioner] suggests plausible alternatives to the IJ’s conclusion. Yet

3 25-770 she cannot show that the record compels a different interpretation, and that is fatal

to her challenge to the adverse credibility determination.”); see also Kalulu v.

Bondi, 128 F.4th 1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 2024) (“[T]he IJ was not required to accept

[petitioner’s] proffered explanation [of inconsistency].”). Because the agency’s

adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, Petitioners

cannot satisfy their burden of proof to show they are eligible for asylum and

withholding of removal. See Manes, 875 F.3d at 1265.

Absent credible testimony, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s

denial of Petitioners’ CAT claims. See Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 927 (holding

that petitioner did not meet evidentiary burden for CAT protection based on

country conditions reports and other corroborating evidence absent credible

testimony).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.2

2 The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.

4 25-770