Su v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANPING SU, No. 22-867
Agency No.
Petitioner, A206-670-855
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jianping Su, 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 applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 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 agency’s factual findings, 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 agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on inconsistencies regarding Su and her daughter’s escape
from family planning officials, and Su’s demeanor during her daughter’s
testimony. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances); Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263-64 (9th
Cir. 2017) (agency’s demeanor finding was supported where IJ provided
“specific, first-hand observations”). Su’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Su’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 agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Su’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and Su 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 in China.
See id. at 1157.
We do not consider the materials Su references in her opening brief that
are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
2 22-867
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 22-867