Rong Ruan v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 11 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONG YUN RUAN, No. 16-71184
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-483-216
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 9, 2018**
Portland, Oregon
Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MÁRQUEZ,*** District
Judge.
Rong Yun Ruan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
*
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 Rosemary Márquez, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s credibility determinations, applying the standards created by
the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010).
The agency’s determination that an applicant knowingly made a frivolous
application for asylum is reviewed de novo for compliance with the procedural
framework set forth by the BIA. Yan Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 925 (9th Cir.
2011). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Ruan’s inconsistent statements regarding her activities during the time
period she was allegedly arrested and detained, and her nervous demeanor when
asked about the inconsistency. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (holding that an
adverse credibility finding was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances);
see also Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that
the “need for deference is particularly strong in the context of demeanor
assessments”). Ruan’s explanation for the inconsistency does not compel a
contrary result. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the
absence of credible testimony, Ruan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2
Ruan’s CAT claim also fails because it rests on the same evidence the
agency found not credible, and Ruan points to no other evidence in the record that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by, or
with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official in China. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, the agency did not err in finding that Ruan filed a frivolous asylum
application. It complied with the procedural requirements set forth by the BIA.
See Yan Liu, 640 F.3d at 927-28. Furthermore, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Ruan deliberately fabricated her alleged arrest
and detention for participating in an underground church, which was a material
element of her asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (“[A]n asylum
application is frivolous if any of its material elements is deliberately fabricated.”);
Yan Liu, 640 F.3d at 927 (stating that “frivolousness must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence”). Further, Ruan was given “ample opportunity . . .
to address and account for any deliberate, material fabrications[.]” Ahir v.
Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3