Yanquin Pan v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANQUIN PAN, No. 16-71160
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-302-048
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 10, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: TALLMAN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,*** District
Judge.
Yanqin Pan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s
*
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 Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
(“IJ”) order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. The IJ identified numerous inconsistencies between Pan’s
testimony, credible fear interview, Record of Sworn Statement, asylum application,
and asylum declaration. Several of these inconsistencies and omissions were non-
trivial, see Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016), and the IJ
gave Pan sufficient opportunity to explain any inconsistency, see Rizk v. Holder,
629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled in part on other grounds by Alam
v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–37 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Moreover, Pan’s
inconsistent statements were “accompanied by other indications of dishonesty,”
Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005), because she repeatedly lied
to immigration officials concerning her relationship to a man with whom she
traveled to the United States. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in upholding the
IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Given the agency’s adverse credibility
determination, Pan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail because “the
remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to carry her burden of establishing
eligibility for relief.” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).
2
2. We lack jurisdiction to consider Pan’s CAT claim because she failed
to raise the issue in her brief before the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d
1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“Petitioner will . . . be deemed to have
exhausted only those issues [she] raised and argued in [her] brief before the
BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3