Mei Qi; Y. Z. v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEI QI; Y. Z.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73993
Agency Nos. A206-346-369
A206-346-370
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON,*** District
Judge.
Petitioners Mei Qi and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of China,
timely seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of
FILED
DEC 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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 Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for
the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their asylum claim. We
deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. That determination is a factual finding, which we review for
substantial evidence, Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020), and
must uphold unless the evidence compels a contrary finding, Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the IJ considered “the totality of the
circumstances” and “all relevant factors,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), and
provided specific, cogent reasons for the finding, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2010). Lead Petitioner claims that she was forced to have
an abortion and to use an IUD. In finding her not credible, the IJ relied on many
inconsistencies. To name just a few: different dates of divorce; different frequency
of required ultrasound tests; different employment history; and different cities
where certain events occurred. The record, including the documentary evidence,
did not compel the IJ to accept Lead Petitioner’s explanations for the
inconsistencies. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962–63 (9th Cir. 2004), superseded
on other grounds by statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
2. The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Petitioners’ request for a
continuance. See Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 883 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)
2

-- 2 of 3 --

(stating standard of review). Petitioners sought the continuance to obtain foreign
documents pertaining only to the dates of Lead Petitioner’s marriage and divorce.
In view of the timing of the request—at the close of the merits hearing—and in
view of Petitioners’ failure to obtain and authenticate documents even though they
had more than a year to do so, the agency permissibly ruled that Petitioners failed
to show “good cause” for a continuance. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ request to
remand their case to the IJ to consider newly authenticated documents. See Taggar
v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating standard of review).
Petitioners failed to show that the documents presented were previously
unavailable or that they would have changed the outcome of the proceeding.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --