NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHUQIN LIU, No. 13-70423
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-773-572
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Shuqin Liu, 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, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 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,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part, deny in part, and grant in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Liu’s contentions regarding eligibility for
CAT relief because she did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction over claims not
presented in administrative proceedings below).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Liu’s omissions regarding having been kicked during her first
interrogation and whether she was interrogated a second time during her detention,
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (“material alterations in the
applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility
finding”), as well as her contradictory explanation for her omission of the second
interrogation, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2011) (improbable
explanation for omission undermined credibility). See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048
(adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Liu’s due process claim, her contentions regarding
demeanor, and her contentions that her detention, the passage of time, translation
2 13-70423
errors, or her lack of English proficiency caused her inability to testify credibly
because she did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 678. In the
absence of credible testimony, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
related to her past harm in China fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
The agency, however, erred in its assessment of Liu’s separate claims for
relief based on her current church attendance because it appeared to fault her for
not providing any witnesses to corroborate her church attendance in the United
States without considering the corroborating evidence she did provide, namely the
letters in the file from a pastor of the Temple City Immanuel Church of the
Nazarene and a pastor of the United Chinese Christian Church. Thus, we grant
the petition for review as to Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims based
on her current church attendance and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part;
GRANTED in part; and REMANDED.
3 13-70423