Qianying HUANG, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: May 12, 2020
Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA,** District Judge.
Vlad Kuzmin, Attorney, Kuzmin & Associates, PC, New York, NY, for Petitioner Micah Engler, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Qianying Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from the order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
First, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies within Huang’s testimony and documentary evidence regarding: (1) where she lived in China, (2) the number on her identification card, (3) events relating to her sterilization, and (4) the date of her marriage. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding an adverse credibility determination reasonable based on “the totality of circumstances”). Huang’s explanations for these inconsistencies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Second, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review Huang’s arguments regarding her corroborative evidence and whether she established an objectively well-founded fear of future persecution based on her religion. Huang failed to meaningfully exhaust with the BIA any challenge to the IJ’s conclusion that she did not submit enough corroborative evidence to meet her burden of proof on her asylum and withholding of removal claims. In addition, Huang did not exhaust with the BIA the IJ’s conclusion that Huang failed to establish an objectively well-founded fear of future persecution. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review these claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Lastly, Huang did not challenge the IJ’s disposition of her CAT claim on appeal to the BIA. Accordingly, she “failed to exhaust [that] claim below—and this court therefore has no jurisdiction to review that decision.” Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 693 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.