Shi v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-2802
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FENG PING SHI, No. 23-2802

Petitioner, Agency No. A203-468-417 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 24, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: IKUTA, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Feng Ping Shi petitions for review from the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing an appeal from an order of an Immigration

Judge (IJ) denying her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

* 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 IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial

evidence. Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). The

evidence does not compel the conclusion that Shi was “in hiding” from family

planning authorities since 2004, given that the record demonstrates that Shi lived

with her parents in the same town, worked openly, sent her children to public

school, and had no interactions with family planning officials since 2012.

Moreover, the record shows that China changed its one-child policy to allow for

two and then three children. Nor does the record compel the conclusion that her

religious persecution claim was credible. Among other things, she stopped

reporting to officials for three months—without explanation or

consequence—before she left China. Furthermore, Shi’s untruthfulness in her

fraudulent 2013 visa application supports the IJ’s determination that Shi was not

being truthful in the immigration proceedings. See Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d

1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[I]f a person testifies falsely, willfully, and materially

on one matter, then his oath or word is not worth anything and he is likely to be

lying in other respects.” (cleaned up)).

Likewise, the IJ’s determination that Shi’s nontestimonial evidence was

insufficient to corroborate her asylum claim was supported by substantial evidence.

None of the corroborative evidence she submitted would compel a reasonable

2 factfinder to find that Shi faced persecution in China on account of her political

opinion or religion. Without her credible testimony, the limited evidence in the

record does not compel the conclusion that the IJ or BIA erred in finding she failed

to carry her burden to establish asylum or withholding of removal. Yali Wang v.

Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).

DENIED.