Ren v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LI REN, No. 06-72591
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-365-745
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 4, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Li Ren, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions this court to
review the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture. In her
application, Ren had claimed that she qualified as a “refugee,” 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 1158(b)(1), alleging that she suffered persecution for her opposition to China’s
population-control policies and her activism against municipal corruption. The IJ
denied relief, concluding that she lacked credibility; the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirmed the adverse credibility determination and adopted the reasoning
that the IJ articulated.
We review findings of fact underlying the denial of asylum applications,
including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. See Rizk v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). The IJ must provide “specific,
cogent reason[s]” underlying his conclusions that “bear a legitimate nexus to the
finding,” Garrovillas v. INS., 156 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal
quotation marks omitted); but he is not constrained to “recit[e] . . . unique or
particular words,” de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 394 (9th Cir. 1997).
In his oral decision denying Ren’s application, the IJ specifically concluded
that her “testimony has not been consistent”; that she “was many times evasive and
not answering the questions to the point where the court had to instruct her”; and
that, upon having “the opportunity to observe [her] demeanor,” she had
“memorized [her testimony] as far as the statement that she had put before the
court.” One or more of these grounds bore a legitimate nexus to his finding. The
2
IJ may properly consider materially inconsistent testimony, evasiveness, and
demeanor in evaluating an applicant’s credibility.
These various grounds, on which the IJ expressly relied in finding Ren not to
be credible, find adequate support in the administrative record.
PETITION DENIED.
3