Ying Qhao v. Loretta Lynch

Fifth Circuit

Ying Qhao v. Loretta Lynch

608 F. App'x 282

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2015

Docket14-60275

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 608 F. App'x 282 (Ying Qhao v. Loretta Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ying Qhao v. Loretta Lynch, 608 F. App'x 282 (5th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Ying Pan Qhao, a citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture' (CAT) relief. Because the BIA relied upon the IJ’s decision, this court reviews both the IJ’s decision and the order of the BIA. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir.2009).

Qhao does not meaningfully challenge the denial of withholding of removal or of her claim that her due process rights were violated; she therefore has abandoned these claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Qhao’s attempts to explain away the evidentiary inconsistencies, implausibilities, and lack of detail identified by the IJ do not constitute substantial evidence compelling the conclusion that she is credible. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538. Likewise, she fails to show that substantial evidence compels her entitlement to either asylum or CAT relief. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Qhao’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Ying Pan Qhao, a citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture' (CAT) relief. Because the BIA relied upon the IJ’s decision, this court reviews both the IJ’s decision and the order of the BIA. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir.2009).

Qhao does not meaningfully challenge the denial of withholding of removal or of her claim that her due process rights were violated; she therefore has abandoned these claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Qhao’s attempts to explain away the evidentiary inconsistencies, implausibilities, and lack of detail identified by the IJ do not constitute substantial evidence compelling the conclusion that she is credible. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538. Likewise, she fails to show that substantial evidence compels her entitlement to either asylum or CAT relief. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Qhao’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 F. App'x 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ying-qhao-v-loretta-lynch-ca5-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack