Caiqin Li v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 16 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAIQIN LI, No. 14-72708
Petitioner, Agency No. 099-966-850
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 6, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Li seeks review of a BIA order denying her claims for asylum and
withholding of removal; the BIA decided Li did not meaningfully appeal the denial
of her CAT claim, and she does not challenge that ruling on appeal to our court.
*
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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny Li’s petition for
review.
“We review factual findings of the IJ and BIA under the substantial evidence
standard. That is, we must sustain factual findings if supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence in the record.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320
F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Under the REAL ID Act, the IJ’s credibility determination is based on “the totality
of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” which may include the inherent
plausibility of the applicant’s account, the consistency between her written and oral
statements, the internal consistency of her statements, and any inaccuracies or
falsehoods in these statements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence. For example, the IJ pointed to several inconsistencies in the record
including Li stating a fact in a supplemental written application and then
contradicting the fact while being questioned by her own attorney. Without
credible testimony or other evidence supporting her claim, Li has not shown that
she is entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
2