NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIANYING HUANG, No. 18-72191
Petitioner, Agency No. 208-839-398
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 8, 2020**
Portland, Oregon
Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA,***
District Judge.
Qianying Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from
*
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).
***
The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3
the order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition.
First, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. “We
review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial
evidence.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation
omitted). Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based
on the inconsistencies within Huang’s testimony and documentary evidence
regarding: (1) where she lived in China, (2) the number on her identification card,
(3) events relating to her sterilization, and (4) the date of her marriage. See Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding an adverse credibility
determination reasonable based on “the totality of circumstances”). Huang’s
explanations for these inconsistencies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Second, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review Huang’s arguments regarding
her corroborative evidence and whether she established an objectively well-founded
fear of future persecution based on her religion. Huang failed to meaningfully
exhaust with the BIA any challenge to the IJ’s conclusion that she did not submit
enough corroborative evidence to meet her burden of proof on her asylum and
Page 3 of 3
withholding of removal claims. In addition, Huang did not exhaust with the BIA the
IJ’s conclusion that Huang failed to establish an objectively well-founded fear of
future persecution. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review these claims.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the Court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Lastly, Huang did not challenge the IJ’s disposition of her CAT claim on
appeal to the BIA. Accordingly, she “failed to exhaust [that] claim below—and this
court therefore has no jurisdiction to review that decision.” Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d
688, 693 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.