Yanli Feng v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANLI FENG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-444
Agency No.
A205-743-573
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Yanli Feng, 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
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
* 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
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-444
findings for substantial evidence, 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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based
on inconsistencies in her testimony regarding how Feng confirmed her
pregnancy, which family planning officials took her to the hospital, and the
timing of her family planning checkups. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); Mukulumbutu
v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Substantial evidence also supports
the BIA’s decision that [petitioner] did not rehabilitate his testimony with
sufficient corroborating evidence.”). Feng’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (IJ
not compelled to accept explanations for discrepancies). Thus, in the absence of
credible testimony, in this case, Feng’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not address Feng’s contentions as to the merits of her asylum and
withholding claims because the BIA did not deny relief on those grounds. See
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review
limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Feng’s CAT
claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the
record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-444
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned
to China. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.
We do not consider the materials Feng references in her opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --