NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHOU QIN HAUNG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70223 

Agency No. A087-619-386 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 9, 2019**

Pasadena, California

Before: OWENS, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Zhou Qin Haung, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final removal order, dismissing her appeal from the 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her asylum and withholding of 

removal. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. 

* 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).

FILED

SEP 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

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

Haung argues that the IJ failed to analyze the “totality of the circumstances”

before making an adverse credibility finding, as required under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), because the IJ did not consider the statements she made in her

credible fear interview.1 According to Haung, these prior statements about her 

claim of persecution—that she was forced to have an abortion under China’s onechild policy—were consistent with her testimony before the IJ, and thus she should 

have been found credible. 

Section 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) merely lists factors that the trier of fact “may” 

consider in determining credibility. The statute does not require that the trier of 

fact specifically discuss any particular factor. “Because credibility determinations 

are findings of fact by the IJ, they ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable 

1 The government argues that we lack jurisdiction to consider this 

argument because Haung did not administratively exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(d)(1) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien 

has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”). 

Although Haung did not present this precise argument before the BIA, she 

nonetheless “challenged the IJ’s overall credibility determination.” Zhi v. Holder, 

751 F.3d 1088, 1094 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014). And the BIA reached the issue in 

concluding that the IJ properly considered the totality of the circumstances, “a subpart of that overall [credibility] determination.” Id.; see also Rodriguez-Castellon 

v. Holder, 733 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e may review any issue 

addressed on the merits by the BIA, regardless whether it was raised to the BIA by 

the petitioner.”). Thus, we have jurisdiction to review this argument.
3 

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Rizk v. Holder, 629 

F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

In this case, the credible fear interview does not undermine the agency’s 

decision to deny relief. The IJ may base an adverse credibility finding on 

discrepancies that do not go “to the heart” of the asylum claim, so long as those 

inconsistencies are “considered in light of the ‘totality of the circumstances.’” 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1040, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Here, 

the IJ and BIA properly based the adverse credibility finding on numerous

inconsistencies in Haung’s testimony at the asylum hearing, even though the 

discrepancies did not go to her forced abortion claim. Haung conceded that her 

testimony was “all over the place.” For example, her testimony about when she 

left China differed from the date stamped in her passport. Her testimony was also 

inconsistent about how she left China and which countries she passed through in 

her journey to the United States. Nothing in the credible fear interview compels a 

contrary conclusion. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1087. Thus, the IJ and BIA did not err 

in concluding that Haung failed to establish her eligibility for asylum and 

withholding of removal.2

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 Because Haung failed to challenge the denial of Convention Against 

Torture protection on appeal, she has waived review of this claim for relief. See 

Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013).