N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YAN PING YE, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , JR . , Attorne y Ge ne ra l , R

e sponde n t . No. 11-72947 Age n c y No. A200-823-189 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July

7, 2014 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : KLEINFELD, TASHIM A, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Yan Ping Ye pe titions this c ourt for re vie wof the de nia l of he r a p plic a tion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . He r a

pplic a t ion wa s de nie d by

an im m i gra tion judgewho found he r



# FIL ED JUL 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).te stim ony

inc re dible prim arily

be c a u se of a n inc onsiste n c y

in the re a sons she gave for he r arriva l in the Unite d State s. The B o a rd of Im m igration Appe a ls a d opte d and a ffirm e d the de c ision of theim m igration judge(“ IJ” ), c iting M atte r of B urba no, 20 I. & N. De c . 872 (B IA 1994), a s we ll a s providing its own re vie w of the l aw a nd fa c ts. W e have jurisdic tion ove r this a ppe a l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd re vie w the IJ a nd the B IA’ s findings of c re dibility for substa

ntia l e vide n c e . Se e Ali v. Holde r, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2011); R i z k v. Holde r, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th C ir. 2011). B e c a

use the findings a

re supporte d by substa

ntia l e v i de nc e , we de ny the p e tition. Upon a rriva l at the San Franc i sc o a irport, M s. Ye told a n im m igration offic e r she c am e to the Unite d State s to le arn English, find a job, a nd se e fam ily . W he n a ske d, Ye de nie d ha ving a ny proble m s with theC hine se gove rnm e nt or having be e n a

rre ste d in C h i na . B ut in he r a pplic at ion for re lie f, and during he r he aring be fore the IJ, Ye sa id she wa s de ta ine d by polic e in C h i na

for a tte n ding a house c hurc h a

nd tha t the polic e be a t he r, burne d he r arm with hot wa

te r, and insiste d tha

t she se pa ra te from the una uthoriz e d c hurc h. W he n a ske d to e xpla in the disc re pa nc y , Ye sa id tha

t a sna ke he a d ha d a dvise d he r to lie a

bout he r re a s ons for le aving C hina , le st the C hine se gove rnm e nt

2find out a

nd punish her m ore se ve re ly . The IJ found it highly im pla u sible that a sm uggle r would a dvise Ye to sa y pre c ise ly the wrong thing to ga

in e ntra n c e into the U .S., or tha

t Ye would follow this a

dvic e . She a c k

nowle dge d tha

t she kne w one c ould not sim

ply c om e to the Unite d State s , study , visit re lat ive s , a nd sta y he re to live . B e c a

use the IJ provide d a

“ spe c ific , c oge nt re a son for disbe lie v ing the a lie n’ s rationa l iz a tion,” the inc onsiste nc y wa s a prope r ba sis for the a dve rse c re d ibility

finding. Id. a

t 1088 (“ [I] f the a lie n fa ils to provide a pla usible e xpla nation, theIJ m a

y prope rly re ly on the inc o nsiste nc y a s support for a n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion.” ). The IJ a lso found it im

p l a usible that , of the twe n ty

pe ople atte nding the c hurc h se rvic e in a

sm a ll building, only

Ye would ha

ve be e n a ppre he nde d by

the polic e , or tha

t wate r poure d on he r from a bove would ha

ve burne d only he r inne r arm . C ontra

ry to Ye ’ s sugge stion, theIJ’ s findings we re not ba se d on pure spe c ulation. Ye wa s que stione d in som e de ta il a bout the siz e and c onfigura tion of the b uilding, a

nd a bout how she

and the polic e offic e r we re positione d so tha t wa te r would only

spla sh he r inne r arm . The pla usibility findings we re m a de in light of this evide nc e , a

nd Ye ’ s ina de quat e re sponse s did not disturb tha t finding. Take n toge the r, the s e disc re pa nc ie s in Ye ’ s te stim ony

we re a pe rm issible ba sis for the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. Se e Liu v. Holde r, 640 F.3d 918, 926 3(9th C ir. 2011) (holding tha t a n inc onsiste nt sta

te m e n t m a de during a irport inte rvie w, toge the r with im p roba ble and ina d e q

uate e xpla

n a t ions for two other disc re pa nc ie s , supporte d a

n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination). Ye a lso a rgue s tha t the IJ im prope rly re lie d on the sta

te m e nts she initia lly gave to im

m igration offic e rs, be c a

use a irport inte rvie ws a

re unre lia ble c re dibility e vide nc e an d be c a

use the inte rvie w itse lf wa s not e nte re d into the re c ord. B ut, a s Ye te stifie d, she wa s que stione d unde r oat h by an offic e r who spoke C hine se and whom she unde rstood. Ye a lso sta te d tha t e ve ry t hing in he r a s y l um

a p plic a tion ha d be e n tra

n sla t e d into M anda

rin for he r, tha

t the a pplic a tion wa s true , a

nd tha t she did not wish to c

ha nge or a dd a

nything to it. W

hile we have a t tim e s

“ he stita te [d] to vie w sta

te m e nts give n during a irport inte rvie ws a s va lua ble im pe a c h m e nt sourc e s,” he re , Ye he rse lf te stifie d to the c onte nt of he r a irport sta te m e nts during the

he a ring. She wa s give n am

p le opportunity

to c la rify the answe rs she gave the a i rport offic ia ls, e xpla i n wha t c onditions ma de the sta

te m e nts unre lia ble , a n d te stify to a ny othe r re le va

nt inform ation pe rta ining to the inte rvie w that wa s not a lre a dy

in the re c ord. Se e Li v. Ashc roft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding IJ pe

rm issibly re lie d on a irport sta

te m e n ts in pa

rt be c a u se pe titione r ha d “ a ffirm a tive ly

de nie d a ny m istre a tm e nt by

the C h ine se Gove rnm e nt,” de nie d e ve r be ing a

rre ste d, a nd sta te d he le ft C h ina

for fina nc ia l re a sons); Liu, 640 F.3d a t 4923 (e xpla ining tha t the IJ c ould use a irport inte rvie w tra nsc ript to im

pe a c h a lie n’ s te stim ony be c a use an inte rpre te r wa s pre se n t a nd a lie n wa s give n

opportunity

to c la rify he r answe rs). The IJ did not e rr by re ly i ng on the a i rport sta te m e nts a s im pe a c h m e nt e vide nc e . Se e Li, 378 F.3d a t 963. W ithout c re dible te stim o ny , Ye ha s not c arrie d he r burde n of proving she wa s e ligiblefor a sy lum

or e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l . 1 Se e Farah v. Ashc roft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). Nor did she e sta blish tha t she will m ore like ly

tha n not be subje c t to tortureupon re turn to C hina . Se e id. a t 1157.

Pe tition DE NIE D .

1 Pe t itione r sugge sts in he r brie f to us tha t the IJ e rre d

by fa iling to re vie w the a ffidavits subm

itte d by he r fa the r and c hurc h frie nds c orroborating he r a c c ount. Unfortuna

te ly , Ye fa ile d to a le rt the IJ or the B IA to the issue , le aving us without jurisdic tion to re v ie w the une xha uste d c la im . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1). C f. M utuku v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha t issue wa s e xha uste d, e v e n though not pre se nte d to the B IA, be c a use pe titione r argue d it be fore the IJ a

n d the B IA a dopte d the IJ’ s de c ision, c iting M a tte r of B urba no). 5