FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUEZHEN YANG, AKA Yue Zhen No. 11-72898
Yang,
Agency No. A099-399-966
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Yuezhen Yang petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
decision denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition. Because the parties
are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. Under
the REAL ID Act, an inconsistency can support an adverse credibility finding even
if it does not go to the heart of the claim. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043
(9th Cir. 2010). Here, Yang testified that she did not organize a protest until May
2005, well after her firing. But an August 2004 letter stated that factory officials
were firing Yang because she was detained for organizing sit-in demonstrations.
The immigration judge (IJ) considered Yang’s explanation for this inconsistency
and concluded that Yang did not explain the discrepancy. Yang’s explanation that
a factory leader concocted a reason to fire her that directly corresponded to events
that occurred nearly a year later was neither reasonable nor plausible. Therefore,
the IJ did not need to discuss her reasons for rejecting the explanation in greater
detail. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ did not need to
offer “express, point-by-point rejection” when petitioner “did not offer a
reasonable and plausible explanation for the discrepancies”). Given this
inconsistency, and in light of the total circumstances, the agency’s adverse
credibility determination was reasonable. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044. Absent
credible testimony, Yang could not establish her eligibility for asylum or
2
withholding of removal. She submitted no additional evidence that would compel
the conclusion that she is entitled to relief under Convention Against Torture.
PETITION DENIED.
3