NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HANGJUAN CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-950

Agency No.

A208-732-763

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 9, 2023**

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Hangjuan Chen (“Chen”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for 

review of a decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 

affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1

 We 

* 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).

1 Chen does not appeal the agency’s denial of her petition for protection under 

CAT.

FILED

JUN 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

“Where, as here, the BIA reviewed the IJ’s credibility-based decision for 

clear error and relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of reasons but did not 

merely provide a boilerplate opinion,” we review “the reasons explicitly 

identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s . . . 

decision in support of those reasons.” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If the “totality of the 

circumstances” provides substantial evidence for an adverse credibility 

determination, we will uphold it. Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th 

Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. 

Chen alleges that she was persecuted in China due to her participation in a 

Christian church. The agency found that Chen testified inconsistently about 

whether she signed a confession statement while detained and whether she was 

required to report to the police after she was released from custody. The agency 

also found Chen’s demeanor evasive and indicated a lack of candor because she 

was reluctant to address the inconsistencies when confronted with them. 

Finally, the agency found that Chen testified inconsistently about the veracity of 

the information provided in her visa application. The record does not compel a 

different conclusion. And, even if Chen provided plausible explanations for 

these inconsistencies, the agency was not compelled to accept her account. See 

Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 
3

785, 790–91 (9th Cir. 2014). Therefore, substantial evidence supports the 

agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Chen “cannot 

overcome the adverse credibility determination.” Garcia, 749 F.3d at 791.

Contrary to Chen’s representation, both the IJ and BIA explicitly 

considered her age but found this factor insufficient under the totality of the 

circumstances. Chen’s argument asks this Court to reweigh the evidence, which 

it cannot do. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2007).

PETITION DENIED.