FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONGXIA SUN, No. 11-73965
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-121-087
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Hongxia Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies within Sun’s testimony regarding when she first intended
to apply for asylum and regarding the existence of medical records aside from the
abortion certificate. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under
totality of circumstances). We do not consider Sun’s explanation of memory
failure regarding the medical records inconsistency because the BIA did not, see
Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (court
considers only the grounds relied upon by the BIA), and Sun does not contend the
BIA erred by failing to address it, see Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Sun’s argument
that she was not given an opportunity to explain the medical records inconsistency
at the hearing because she did not exhaust it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, in the absence of credible
testimony, Sun’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-73965