Li Qing v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QING LI, No. 18-72926
Petitioner,
Agency No. A206-666-075
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting MEMORANDUM*
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 1, 2021**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Qing Li, a native and citizen of China, requests review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her applications for asylum and
*
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).
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition for review.
The immigration judge (“IJ”) found Li not credible, and the BIA concluded
that the IJ’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies and implausibilities in
the record. See Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019); Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). Particularly, the record supports the
cited inconsistencies in Li’s testimony, asylum interview, and asylum application
as to her marital status. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048. Li also provided false
statements in her visa application. These false statements properly support the
adverse credibility determination because they were given in a visa application that
was not used for an immediate escape from persecution. See Singh v. Holder, 638
F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, Li omitted from her asylum application
information about a second forced abortion in China, a fact highly relevant to her
asylum claims resting on forcible abortion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969,
973–74 (9th Cir. 2011). The record also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Li’s
testimony was implausible with respect to the timing of her second pregnancy and
her actions in returning home after her successful escape from authorities. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044.
2
Moreover, the BIA properly concluded that Li’s corroborating evidence—in
the form of her household registration book, medical outpatient book, and letter
from her son—was insufficient to rehabilitate her credibility or independently
support her claim for asylum. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264–65 (9th
Cir. 2017). For instance, the household registration book contained incorrect
statements, the outpatient book lacked information about follow-up treatment after
the abortion despite Li’s allegation that she was hospitalized for days, and the
son’s letter alleged, without explaining why, that authorities are looking for Li and
she will be arrested and sentenced if she returns to China. Li was given an
opportunity to explain any relevant omissions or inconsistencies but failed to
adequately do so. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Without credible testimony, the BIA properly denied Li’s claims for asylum
and withholding of removal.1 See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION DENIED.
1
Because Li did not raise her CAT claim in her opening brief, we deem that
issue waived. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
3