Yunqin Chen; Weili Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUNQIN CHEN; WEILI CHEN,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-268
Agency Nos.
A209-786-070
A208-908-624
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 9, 2023**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Yunqin and Weili Chen, natives and citizens of China, seek review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Yunqin’s lead applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence,
* 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).
FILED
JUN 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), we deny the petition.1
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.
“We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, and must
uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Singh v. Holder,
643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011).
Yunqin does not dispute that there are several inconsistencies between her
testimony and other evidence in the record. But she argues that the
inconsistencies were trivial, and that the BIA erred in rejecting her explanations
for the inconsistencies. For instance, Yunqin asserts that the inconsistency
between her testimony that she did not travel outside of China before 2014 and
evidence of her arrest in Singapore prior to 2014 is trivial. But this discrepancy
was not so trivial that it “ha[d] no bearing on [Yunqin’s] veracity.” Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010). And the BIA was not required to
accept Yunqin’s explanation for this inconsistency. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th
954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that the BIA is not compelled to accept a
petitioner’s explanation even if the explanation is reasonable).
The discrepancies between Yunqin’s testimony about who attended her
baptism and other evidence in the record also support the adverse credibility
determination. Again, the BIA was not required to accept Yunqin’s explanations
1 Although Yunqin raised a CAT claim before the IJ, she did not meaningfully
challenge the IJ’s denial of the claim before the BIA. Thus, the issue is not
properly before us for review. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d
1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
for these discrepancies. See id. And the BIA did not err in rejecting Yunqin’s
argument that faulty translating caused various discrepancies between her first
and second personal statements because Yunqin testified that she understood the
questions asked by the interpreter and reviewed her first personal statement in
Mandarin.
Furthermore, Yunqin admitted she provided false information when she
applied for three non-immigrant visas. Because the record reflects that Chen’s
false statements were unrelated to “escaping immediate danger or gaining entry
into the United States,” they provided a legitimate basis for the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. Singh, 643 F.3d at 1181. These inconsistencies
constitute substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination, and therefore we do not reach Yunqin’s arguments relating to
other inconsistencies the BIA identified. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA concluded that “no other credible evidence independently”
carried Yunqin’s burden of establishing eligibility for relief, and she has not
shown that the record compels a contrary conclusion. See Wang, 861 F.3d
at 1009. Accordingly, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --