NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUN 12 2017
YINGZI LIN, No. 14-72633 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-900-609
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 8, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,*** District
Judge.
Petitioner Yingzi Lin seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
("BIA") dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s ("IJ") order denying
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Petitioner’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Reviewing for
substantial evidence, Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016), we
deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination. Petitioner gave non-responsive answers to three separate questions.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (permitting the IJ to consider the "responsiveness
of the applicant" in making a credibility determination). She also testified
inconsistently about whether the birth control official was from her neighborhood
or from her place of employment. Petitioner’s explanation to us that perhaps the
same person was in charge of both areas contradicts her clear testimony that the
official was from her neighborhood only. Because some substantial reasons
support the BIA’s decision, we need not consider the BIA’s other reasons.
Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738–39 (9th Cir. 2014).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s analysis of the documents in the
record. The BIA permissibly found that, even if the documents in the record were
credited, they did not establish that Petitioner’s abortion was forced. Accordingly,
Petitioner could not establish her claims for relief from removal without credible
testimony.
Petition DENIED.
2