Case ID: f-appx_711/html/0436-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

QIU RONG WANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73316
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 9, 2018  Pasadena, California
    Filed February 15, 2018
    Albert Chow, Attorney, Lin & Chow, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner
    Jessica Dawgert, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Qiu Rong Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Petitioner did not testify credibly. See Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standard). Petitioner’s testimony before the IJ was inconsistent and conflicted with her written declarations in several respects, including when she lived at her aunt’s home, when she had her first IUD removed, and the year of her second alleged forced abortion. In citing those discrepancies as the basis for the credibility determination, the IJ supplied “specific and cogent reasons” to find Petitioner’s testimony incredible, and the inconsistencies do not constitute “mere trivial error.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009)).

2. The IJ did not err by failing to provide Petitioner with notice that her corroborative evidence was insufficient. Such notice, discussed in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2011), is not required here because the IJ determined that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 2017).

Petition DENIED. 
      
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.