NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEP 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SHAOHUA CHANG, No. 16-71456
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-747-808
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Shaohua Chang petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her
claim for asylum.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
The BIA’s determination that Chang did not testify credibly is supported by
substantial evidence. Chang’s testimony that she was introduced to Christianity in
2005, was inconsistent with her son’s testimony, which indicated that Chang had
been a practicing Christian over ten years earlier. This inconsistency was not
minor, cf. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011); rather, it undercut
Chang’s testimony that she was introduced to Christianity as a result of
unemployment and was persecuted shortly thereafter. Moreover, the IJ’s
conclusion that Chang’s “explosive” interruption of her son’s testimony weighed
against her credibility is entitled to particular deference because it is an assessment
of Chang’s demeanor. See Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153–54 (9th
Cir. 2014). Further, the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determination was also
supported by the lack of detail in Chang’s testimony regarding her prior abortion
1
Because Chang did not challenge the IJ’s denials of withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in her appeal
to the BIA, these claims were not exhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to address
them here. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
2
and her inability to recall important dates in her life. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Finally, the IJ was not required to afford Chang an opportunity to provide
additional corroborative evidence because the IJ determined that Chang’s
testimony was not credible. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th
Cir. 2017); Ren, 648 F.3d at 1091–92.
Without Chang’s credible testimony, there is insufficient evidence in the
record for Chang to meet her burden of proving eligibility for asylum.
PETITION DENIED.
3