YINGYU JIN, AKA Young Ok Kim v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YINGYU JIN, AKA Young Ok Kim,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70836
Agency No. A088-289-167
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Yingyu Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
MAY 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-70836
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Jin’s testimony and her household registration
regarding whether she had ever worked in China; inconsistencies regarding why
and how she updated her household registration; and her demeanor. Id. at 1044
(adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances);
Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2014) (an adverse credibility
determination based on the alien’s demeanor should be afforded special deference
because such assessments are often based on nonverbal cues and thus, the IJ is best
suited to make demeanor determinations). Jin’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011)
(agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of
credible testimony, Jin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Jin’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Jin does not
point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-70836
likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --