United States v. 2020-09-10 | 15-70274 | LILI HE V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LILI HE,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70274

Agency No. A089-479-987

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 08, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Lili He, 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 decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

*
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

SEP 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 15-70274
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on significant omissions from He’s original asylum application and credible
fear interview, particularly her claims that she was arrested and detained in 2007
and subjected to a subsequent monthly reporting requirement. Shrestha, 590 F.3d
at 1048 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the
circumstances); Jiang, 754 F.3d at 738-40 (substantial evidence review is a highly
deferential standard that requires upholding the adverse credibility finding so long
as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence). He’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, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Additionally, the agency properly admitted and gave appropriate weight to
the credible fear interview notes that He submitted into evidence. The agency also
provided He with a sufficient opportunity to explain any perceived inconsistencies

3 15-70274
or omissions in the record. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by He’s contentions
on appeal that the agency violated her right to due process by failing to provide her
with a full and fair hearing. Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir.
2011) (a court will grant a petition on due process grounds only if the proceeding
was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably
presenting his case) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.