NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANLING XU; SAI LIU, No. 17-73402
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A087-887-171
A087-887-172
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Yanling Xu and Sai Liu, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the
*
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).
standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID
Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Petitioners have waived any challenge to the agency’s finding that Xu
provided vague and inconsistent testimony regarding her involvement in
distributing church materials in her neighborhood in China. See Rizk v. Holder,
629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issue not raised in an opening brief is
waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies between Xu’s testimony and her medical records
regarding her abortion, Xu’s vague and inconsistent testimony regarding her
involvement in distributing church materials in her neighborhood in China, and
petitioners’ misrepresentations regarding their residence in their motion to transfer
venue. See Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2014) (misrepresentation
of residence for purpose of forum shopping supports adverse credibility
determination); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Xu’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000).
In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, petitioners’ asylum and
2 17-73402
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions that the IJ
should have granted their motion to change venue because they failed to raise this
contention to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 17-73402