Lijuan Qiao v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    SEP 18 2019
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LIJUAN QIAO,                                     No.   16-71676
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A201-040-105
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 9, 2019**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: RAWLINSON, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
    Petitioner Lijuan Qiao (Qiao), a Chinese native and citizen, petitions for
    review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her
    *
    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).
    appeal of the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.1 Qiao contends that
    substantial evidence does not support the adverse credibility determination made
    by the immigration judge (IJ).
    Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. “Under
    the REAL ID Act, which applies here, there is no presumption that an applicant for
    relief is credible, and the IJ is authorized to base an adverse credibility
    determination on the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.” Manes
    v. Sessions, 
    875 F.3d 1261
    , 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    As the BIA correctly recognized, Qiao testified that Chinese authorities
    came to her sister-in-law’s residence in search of her daughter, who was arrested in
    October, 2007, for attending unauthorized religious services. According to Qiao,
    the authorities arrived at her sister-in-law’s residence “[t]he first day after [her]
    daughter was arrested,” and “the police only approached [Qiao] when [Qiao was]
    living at [her] sister-in-law’s house.” However, Qiao’s daughter was already in the
    United States when Qiao and her husband purportedly moved into her sister-in-
    law’s residence in 2009, two years after her daughter’s arrest in 2007. This
    1
    Qiao waived her appeal of the denial of her claim pursuant to the
    Convention Against Torture by failing to address it in her opening brief. See
    Bingxu Jin v. Holder, 
    748 F.3d 959
    , 964 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014).
    2
    inconsistency is sufficient to support the adverse credibility determination. See 
    id.
    Additionally, the BIA properly relied on Qiao’s inconsistent testimony
    concerning the date of her daughter’s arrest in concluding that Qiao was not
    credible. Qiao testified that her daughter was arrested in 2007, but related in her
    asylum statement that her daughter was arrested in 2009. This inconsistency is
    relevant because Qiao asserted in her asylum statement that she fled to the United
    States and sought asylum in part because Chinese authorities “kept harassing [her]”
    after her daughter’s arrest. See 
    id.
     (articulating that “[t]he IJ may also consider
    inconsistencies between the petitioner’s statements and other evidence of record”)
    (citation omitted).2
    PETITION DENIED.
    2
    Because the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
    evidence due to Qiao’s inconsistent testimony, we need not and do not address
    Qiao’s contention that the BIA erred in holding that she failed to sufficiently
    corroborate her asylum claim.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-71676

Filed Date: 9/18/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/18/2019