United States v. 2020-02-10 | 18-71292 | LIJUAN DING V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIJUAN DING,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-71292

Agency No. A206-205-780

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted February 5, 2020
**

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Lijuan Ding, 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. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here.

*
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

FEB 10 2020

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

2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition and remand.
We review the BIA’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings,
for substantial evidence. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). Factual
findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Smolniakova v. Gonzales,
422 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2005).
The agency found Ding not credible based on the timeline between her
travel to Malaysia and obtaining a U.S. visa, false statements made by Ding in
order to obtain the visa, and corroborating evidence that the agency found
undermined Ding’s credibility.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. We will not uphold an adverse credibility finding where it is based
on “speculation and conjecture.” See Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir.
2014). The corroborating evidence that the agency relied upon here depends on
speculation and conjecture, rather than omissions or inconsistencies in Ding’s
testimony or evidence.
For these reasons we grant the petition for review and remand Ding’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims to the agency for further proceedings
consistent with this disposition.
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.

3
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND REMANDED