NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 5 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT QIHONG BAO, No. 16-70107 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-795-528 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 12, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, FISHER,*** and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. After overstaying a one-month visitor visa, Qihong Bao filed for asylum, withholding from removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming past persecution and fear of future persecution for resisting * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. China’s one-child policy. An immigration judge found Bao not credible and denied all relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Bao petitions for our review. The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3), and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (5). The BIA “‘relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of reasons’ but ‘did not merely provide a boilerplate opinion,’” so “‘we review here the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those reasons.’” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)). Factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). “[U]nder the REAL ID Act, IJs must ‘provide specific and cogent reasons in support of an adverse credibility determination.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009)). We may only reverse a credibility determination “when ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Zhi, 751 F.3d at 1091 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). “[O]nly the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning” the BIA’s decision. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1041 (quoting Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)). 2 The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s findings that Bao’s story was implausible and his testimony was embellished and inconsistent with his asylum application. The IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for discrediting Bao’s testimony. The IJ found that Bao did not provide a plausible explanation for why, after Chinese officials threatened his wife with a compulsory abortion and visited their home twice, Bao did not rush to move her to the safety of a relative’s home. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If the IJ reasonably rejects the alien’s explanation or if the alien fails to provide a plausible explanation, the IJ may properly rely on the inconsistency ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals