NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIUQIN LIANG, Nos. 14-71490
14-72969
Petitioner,
Agency No. A099-739-825
v.
JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Xiuqin Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding
of removal (No. 14-71490), and of the BIA’s subsequent denial of her motion to
reopen proceedings (No. 14-72969). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying
the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL
ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Sharma v. Holder, 633
F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petitions for review.
Liang’s renewed request to refer this case to mediation is denied in light of
our resolution of her previous request (No. 14-71490, Docket Entry No. 9; No. 14-
72969, Docket Entry No. 7).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Liang’s request for prosecutorial discretion.
See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
As to petition No. 14-71490, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
adverse credibility determination based on Liang’s inability to recall the address of
the business she claimed to have run from 1999 to 2006, the discrepancy as to
whether Liang’s husband was beaten after Liang escaped China, and the agency’s
findings regarding Liang’s trips to the hospital where she allegedly underwent two
abortions. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances). The agency reasonably rejected Liang’s
explanations. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2011) (“the
2 14-72969
record does not compel the finding that the IJ’s unwillingness to believe [the
explanation] was erroneous”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case,
Liang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744
F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
As to petition No. 14-72969, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Liang’s motion to reopen where Liang failed to present clear and convincing
evidence of a strong likelihood that her marriage to a United States citizen was
bona fide. See Sharma, 633 F.3d at 872 (applicant must offer evidence “probative
of the motivation for marriage, not just the bare fact of getting married”)(internal
citation and quotation omitted).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72969