Haiying Wang v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAIYING WANG, No. 15-73901 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-990-705 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, GOULD, and DIAZ,*** Circuit Judges. Haiying Wang (“Wang”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an * 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). *** The Honorable Albert Diaz, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the IJ’s determination that she filed a frivolous asylum application. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Wang failed to timely file her asylum application—a conclusion Wang does not challenge on appeal. The BIA also found no error in the IJ’s finding that Wang didn’t present credible testimony and therefore couldn’t establish her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Wang’s lack of credibility, coupled with evidence consisting solely of general reports about torture in China, led the BIA to conclude that Wang failed to show she was entitled to CAT protection. Finally, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Wang had submitted a frivolous asylum application. It concluded—based on close similarities between Wang’s declaration and three others previously filed by different applicants—that Wang’s declaration was canned and thus she had knowingly and deliberately fabricated material elements of her application. We review administrative findings of fact for substantial evidence. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The agency’s determination that an applicant knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum is reviewed de novo for compliance with the procedural framework set forth by the BIA. See Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 916–17 (9th Cir. 2008) (adopting framework from In re Y- L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 151–52 (BIA 2007)). 2 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination here. The IJ found that Wang lacked credibility because there were inconsistencies between her testimony and her asylum declaration as to the timing and occurrence of certain events involved in her narrative of undergoing a forced abortion in China. The IJ also noted Wang’s hesitant demeanor when questioned beyond the narrative contained in her declaration. “IJs are in the best position to assess demeanor and other credibility cues that we cannot readily access on review,” and thus, “only the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals