Ting Jia v. Merrick Garland

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 19 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TING JIA; HUAN WANG, No. 16-70593
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A087-890-478
A087-890-479
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 11, 2022
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA and LEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,** District Judge.
Petitioners Ting Jia and Huan Wang, wife and husband and natives and
citizens of China, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA), dismissing the appeal of a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ),
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
who denied Ms. Jia’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 The IJ acknowledged
that petitioners would have been eligible for asylum if they were persecuted for
opposing China’s one-child policy but denied relief based on an adverse credibility
determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition.
The adverse credibility determinations of the IJ and BIA are supported by
substantial evidence. See Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021)
(“Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, we review the BIA’s
credibility determination for substantial evidence.”); Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958
F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir.) (“Where, as here, the BIA cites [Matter of Burbano, 20 I.
& N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994)] and also provides its own review of the evidence and
law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” (quoting Ali v. Holder, 637
F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011))), cert. denied sub nom. Fermin v. Barr, 141 S. Ct.
664 (2020).
The finding that there was a discrepancy regarding whether or not petitioners
met with the snake head is supported by the record. The finding that there were
1
Ms. Jia is the lead petitioner, and Mr. Wang is a derivative beneficiary
of her asylum application.
2
discrepancies between Ms. Jia’s and Mr. Wang’s testimony regarding details of
important events also is supported by the record. Those discrepancies include the
following: Ms. Jia said she learned of her pregnancy the day after her mandatory
checkup, but Mr. Wang said that it was the same day as the checkup, Mr Wang
initially testified that the forced abortion was in February 2008 before correcting
himself to say December 2008; Ms. Jia said she returned home from the abortion in
the morning, but her husband said it was the afternoon; Ms. Jia said she was
hospitalized in Benxi City Red Cross Hospital, while Mr. Wang called it Benxi
Number 4 Hospital; Mr. Wang initially said Ms. Jia was detained in February 2008
before correcting himself to say February 2009. Examining the totality of the
circumstances, we conclude that the agency’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3