Hongli Ma v. Loretta E. Lynch , 645 F. App'x 556 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONGLI MA, No. 13-73207
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-292-399
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Hongli Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.
2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Ma’s omission from her asylum application statement of 17 years of
forced re-education classes and a threat of punishment for failing to continue to
attend the classes, and on a discrepancy as to why Ma was not required to have an
intrauterine device after her first pregnancy. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”); see also
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility
finding supported by substantial evidence when added details told a different, more
compelling story of persecution). Ma’s explanations for the omission and
discrepancy do not compel the contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, Ma’s corroborative evidence does not rehabilitate
her testimony. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). In the
absence of credible testimony, Ma’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 13-73207
Finally, Ma’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the
conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to
China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73207