Qun Liu v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QUN LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72039
Agency No. A088-319-534
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 16, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO,*** District
Judge.
Qun Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from 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 Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we review the Board’s determination
for substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010).
In dismissing Liu’s appeal, the Board upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding on the basis of several inconsistencies within Liu’s testimony and between
it and her documentary submissions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). For
example, Liu initially testified and indicated in her written declaration that she was
promoted at the hospital in which she worked just one week after medical
personnel at the same hospital forced her to undergo an abortion; Liu then changed
her testimony, saying that she was in fact demoted after the procedure. When the
government asked her to explain this inconsistency, Liu testified that she was both
promoted and demoted. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011)
(concluding that the applicant’s opportunity to explain may be provided through
direct and cross-examination, not just through “multiple iterations” of explanation
or a “colloquy” with the IJ). The Board relied on several other inconsistencies
identified by the IJ and concluded that Liu was given ample opportunity to explain
them but failed to do so.
Even assuming that Liu’s explanations were plausible, we cannot say that

-- 2 of 3 --

3
“any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” that Liu’s testimony
was credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). In the absence of credible testimony from
Liu, or other evidence showing that she endured a forced abortion, Liu cannot
establish that her political opinion or any other protected ground was a central
reason for her persecution. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).
Because Liu cannot overcome the IJ’s adverse credibility determination,
substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C). Apart from her discredited testimony, Liu has not
identified any additional evidence that the IJ failed to consider, and nothing in the
record independently supports a claim for withholding of removal. See Garcia v.
Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014).
Substantial evidence also supports the rejection of Liu’s claim under the
Convention Against Torture. See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir.
2015). Liu’s claim relied on the same statements that she made regarding her
claims for asylum and withholding of removal. And her documentary evidence is
insufficient to establish a probability of torture for the same reason that it did not
establish her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Garcia, 749 F.3d
at 792.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --