Yabin Bi v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YABIN BI, No. 20-70847
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-187-728
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Yabin Bi, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the convention against torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for
substantial evidence, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-
40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on
Bi’s demeanor and inconsistencies as to whether she had an IUD inserted after her
forced abortion and the preparation of the notes she brought to her asylum
interview. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the
totality of circumstances”). Bi’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ not required to
accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, in
this case, Bi’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Bi’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Bi does not
point to any 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 the
government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
2 20-70847
We do not consider the materials Bi references in her opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-70847