NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIN HUANG, No. 19-72335
Petitioner, Agency No. A215-828-850
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Qin Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the
REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Huang references in her opening brief that
are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Huang’s testimony and documentary evidence as
to the date of her baptism, when she began attending church, the reason she applied
for a 2016 visa, and who prepared her 2018 visa application, and based on
testimony that was improbable or evasive. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047-48
(finding adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of the
circumstances”, in part because “when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim
it doubtless is of great weight”). Huang’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, Huang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Huang’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible,
2 19-72335
and Huang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id. at 1157.
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-72335