Jingna Wang v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
NOV 4 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINGNA WANG, No. 19-73147
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-769-037
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 21, 2020
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jingna Wang seeks review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial
of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal on adverse credibility
grounds. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
removal. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility
determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789
(9th Cir. 2014). “Factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (quotation marks omitted)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). “[A] trier of fact may base an adverse
credibility determination on the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ including, for
example, the applicant’s responsiveness, consistency between written and oral
statements, the internal consistency of those statements, and any inaccuracies or
falsehoods without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” Id.(citations and quotation marks omitted). “When the BIA conducts its own review
of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited
to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly
adopted.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation
marks omitted).
In upholding the adverse credibility determination, the Board relied on two
of the IJ’s findings. First, the Board cited the IJ’s finding that Wang’s timeline of
events was implausible. Wang testified that she wanted to leave China following a
forced abortion, but she only did so six years later, after traveling to Southeast Asia
2
and suffering a second forced abortion. The IJ found that there was no urgency in
Wang’s applying for a visa to the United States and concluded that her timeline
and testimony about a second abortion were not plausible. Second, the Board cited
the multiple inconsistencies between Wang’s testimony and her and her husband’s
household registers that she had proffered as documentary evidence. Wang
testified that she married her second husband in September 2012. However, her
household register issued in October 2012 did not indicate that she was married,
and her husband’s household register issued in August 2012 indicated that he was
already married.
The Board also agreed with the IJ’s decision to accord Wang’s corroborating
evidence limited weight and determined that the documents did not rehabilitate her
testimony or independently satisfy her burden of proof. In addition to the issues
with the proffered household registers, the IJ identified multiple issues with
Wang’s documentary evidence, including numerous discrepancies between two
versions of Wang’s medical records and the timing of when her son’s birth
certificate and a one-child certificate were issued.
Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that the adverse
credibility determination was erroneous or that Wang’s corroborating evidence
independently satisfies her burden of proof. The petition for review is DENIED.
3