Xueping Han v. Loretta E. Lynch , 635 F. App'x 391 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XUEPING HAN, No. 13-73181
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-778-530
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Xueping Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
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 inconsistencies between Han’s testimony and documentary evidence
regarding her alleged forced abortions and her employment termination. See id. at
1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances);
Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (9th Cir. 2003) (inconsistency between
testimony and documentary evidence supported adverse credibility finding). The
agency reasonably rejected Han’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible
testimony, Han’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Huang v.
Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on October 13, 2015, has expired.
Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73181