NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 de nying 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, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 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 no t

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) (interna l 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, 113 5 (9th

Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Substantial evidenc e supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding.

Chen alleges that sh e 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 d etained 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 th em

.

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 incon sistencies, 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.3d3 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.

C ontrary to Chen’s representation , both the IJ and BIA explici tly

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

circumstances. Chen’s argumen t asks t his Court to reweigh the evidence , which

it cannot do

. Don v. Gonzales , 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2007).

PETITION DENIED.