Linlin Liu v. Merrick Garland


NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LINLIN LIU, No. 14-71029 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-796-193 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 24, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: GOULD, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Linlin Liu, a citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s * 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). decision for substantial evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). When the BIA relies in part on the IJ’s opinion, we review those parts of the IJ’s adverse credibility findings on which the BIA relied. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. When making a credibility assessment, an IJ must consider “the totality of the circumstances” and “all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The IJ may consider inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods in the testimony and record “without regard to whether” they “go[] to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” Id. “There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Instead, “our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances.” Id. Here, the IJ identified specific inconsistencies in Liu’s testimony regarding where she lived in the United States, her reasons for relocating within the United States, her living situations, when she began learning English, and why she came to the United States. Taken together, these inconsistencies form a legitimate basis for 2 discrediting Liu’s testimony. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that “even minor inconsistencies” may have a “legitimate impact . . . on credibility”). Liu has not contested the inconsistencies but argues that she was nervous when she testified. But Liu has not shown that the IJ was required to accept this explanation.1 2. Even assuming Liu testified credibly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s alternative determination that Liu failed to show entitlement to relief. To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a likelihood of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, …

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