Shulan Liang v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

14-70130Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2 mai 2016

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHULAN LIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70130
Agency No. A201-004-569
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Shulan Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-70130
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.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on a lack
of candor, implausibilities, and inconsistencies between Liang’s testimony and the
evidence. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination
under the totality of circumstances. See id. at 1048; see also Singh-Kaur v. INS,
183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (“In the circumstances, the IJ reasonably
resolved her doubt against Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof.”). Liang’s
explanations do not compel the contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Liang’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.