FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUEQI CAO, No. 08-72960
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-462-839
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 16, 2012
Submission deferred October 19, 2012
Resubmitted June 24, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, TALLMAN**, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Yueqi Cao petitions for review of a Board of Immigrations Appeals (“BIA”)
decision dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Judge Richard C. Tallman was drawn to replace Judge B. Fletcher and
has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to a recording of oral
arguments.
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based upon an adverse credibility
determination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the
petition for review.
The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
We agree. The adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Monjaraz-Munoz v.
INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir. 2003), which included Cao’s unreliable testimony
about her residency, employment, and surgery; questionable documentary
evidence; failure to corroborate documentary evidence with testimony from her
husband and family relative, both of whom were living in the United States, and to
explain their inability to testify, see Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir.
2000); and lack of specificity in her declaration, cf. Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d
1375, 1382 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that an applicant’s “failure to file an
application form that was as complete as might be desired cannot, without more,
properly serve as the basis for a finding of a lack of credibility” (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ properly relied upon these factors
when rendering an adverse credibility determination under the REAL ID Act, see 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (requiring that credibility determinations be based upon
2
a “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors”), and dismissal of Cao’s
petition were not erroneous.
Furthermore, Cao has waived her due process claim and any challenge to the
BIA’s denial of CAT protection by failing to argue these issues in her opening
brief. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). Our
unwillingness to review these issues does not result in manifest injustice. United
States v. Loya, 807 F.2d 1483, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3