FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 18 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIJUAN QIAO, No. 16-71676
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-040-105
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 9, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Lijuan Qiao (Qiao), a Chinese native and citizen, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her
*
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).
appeal of the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.1 Qiao contends that
substantial evidence does not support the adverse credibility determination made
by the immigration judge (IJ).
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. “Under
the REAL ID Act, which applies here, there is no presumption that an applicant for
relief is credible, and the IJ is authorized to base an adverse credibility
determination on the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.” Manes
v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
As the BIA correctly recognized, Qiao testified that Chinese authorities
came to her sister-in-law’s residence in search of her daughter, who was arrested in
October, 2007, for attending unauthorized religious services. According to Qiao,
the authorities arrived at her sister-in-law’s residence “[t]he first day after [her]
daughter was arrested,” and “the police only approached [Qiao] when [Qiao was]
living at [her] sister-in-law’s house.” However, Qiao’s daughter was already in the
United States when Qiao and her husband purportedly moved into her sister-in-
law’s residence in 2009, two years after her daughter’s arrest in 2007. This
1
Qiao waived her appeal of the denial of her claim pursuant to the
Convention Against Torture by failing to address it in her opening brief. See
Bingxu Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014).
2
inconsistency is sufficient to support the adverse credibility determination. See id.
Additionally, the BIA properly relied on Qiao’s inconsistent testimony
concerning the date of her daughter’s arrest in concluding that Qiao was not
credible. Qiao testified that her daughter was arrested in 2007, but related in her
asylum statement that her daughter was arrested in 2009. This inconsistency is
relevant because Qiao asserted in her asylum statement that she fled to the United
States and sought asylum in part because Chinese authorities “kept harassing [her]”
after her daughter’s arrest. See id. (articulating that “[t]he IJ may also consider
inconsistencies between the petitioner’s statements and other evidence of record”)
(citation omitted).2
PETITION DENIED.
2
Because the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence due to Qiao’s inconsistent testimony, we need not and do not address
Qiao’s contention that the BIA erred in holding that she failed to sufficiently
corroborate her asylum claim.
3