Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SHAOHUA CHANG, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Shaohua Chang petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her claim for asylum.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
The BIA’s determination that Chang did not testify credibly is supported by substantial evidence. Chang’s testimony that she was introduced to Christianity in 2005, was inconsistent with her son’s testimony, which indicated that Chang had been a practicing Christian over ten years earlier. This inconsistency was not minor, cf. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011); rather, it undercut Chang’s testimony that she was introduced to Christianity as a result of unemployment and was persecuted shortly thereafter. Moreover, the IJ’s conclusion that Chang’s “explosive” interruption of her son’s testimony weighed against her credibility is entitled to particular deference because it is an assessment of Chang’s demeanor. See Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2014). Further, the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determination was also supported by the lack of detail in Chang’s testimony regarding her prior abortion and her inability to recall important dates in her life. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Finally, the IJ was not required to afford Chang an opportunity to provide additional corroborative evidence because the IJ determined that Chang’s testimony was not credible. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017); Ren, 648 F.3d at 1091–92.
Without Chang’s credible testimony, there is insufficient evidence in the record for Chang to meet her burden of proving eligibility for asylum.
PETITION DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Because Chang did not challenge the IJ’s denials of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in her appeal to the BIA, these claims were not exhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to address them here. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-71456
Decided: September 13, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)