Hai Lan Han v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAI LAN HAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70555
Agency No. A094-938-478
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,*** District
Judge.
Petitioner Hai Han (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of a decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of an Immigration Judge
* 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 David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
(“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
“The decision that an alien has not established eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is reviewed for substantial evidence.” Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). Additionally, “factual findings, including
adverse credibility determinations,” are reviewed for substantial evidence. Garcia
v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the deferential substantial
evidence standard, unless the evidence compels a conclusion otherwise, we must
affirm the agency’s decision. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding as to Petitioner.
The REAL ID Act permits the agency to base an adverse credibility determination
on the “totality of the circumstances,” which can include an “applicant’s
responsiveness, consistency between written and oral statements, the internal
consistency of those statements, and any inaccuracies or falsehoods.” Garcia, 749
F.3d at 789 (quoting Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010)).
As the agency noted, Petitioner’s testimony was internally inconsistent, was
inconsistent with documentary evidence, and lacked important details. To support
1 Petitioner only explicitly challenges the denial of asylum and specifically disclaims
any challenge to the CAT denial.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Petitioner’s claims of persecution under the one child policy and religious
persecution, she gave inconsistent testimony on when her pregnancies and alleged
forced abortions occurred, when she was allegedly arrested for her religion, how
many times and where she was sexually assaulted, and who found her and
transported her to the hospital following her alleged suicide attempt.
Regarding Petitioner’s claims of persecution under the one child policy, she
initially testified that she experienced her third pregnancy in 1992, she later stated
that her third pregnancy took place in 1994, and when asked about the abortion for
her third pregnancy, she stated that the forced abortion of her third pregnancy took
place in 1994. Further, Petitioner did not mention multiple pregnancies or forced
abortions in her declaration—her declaration mentioned only having to pay a 2000
Yuan fine for getting pregnant in support of her claim for persecution under China’s
one child policy.
Concerning Petitioner’s alleged religious persecution, she testified that she
was penalized in 1994 because of her involvement with her church; however, she
later testified that she was arrested as a traitor to her country in 1996. Next,
concerning her alleged sexual assaults, Petitioner’s testimony was inconsistent with
her declaration as far as the location where the assaults took place and the number
of assaults. Last, regarding Petitioner’s suicide attempt, her testimony was internally

-- 3 of 4 --

4
inconsistent and conflicted with her declaration about who found her and transported
her to the hospital after her alleged suicide attempt.
Petitioner offered several excuses for her inconsistent testimony—confusion
by the questioning, faulty memory due to the passage of time, and trauma—all of
which the agency considered. She also answered several questions regarding
inconsistencies with nonresponsive answers such as that she experienced a
continuous pregnancy, continuous persecution, and continuous sexual assault. None
of the reasons offered by Petitioner compel the conclusion that Petitioner’s
testimony was credible. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
finding that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible.
Lastly, because Petitioner admitted that the only documentary evidence she
provided was not an original document and contained an incorrect date, the non-
testimonial evidence does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner was entitled to
asylum or withholding of removal.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --