NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHUQIN LIU,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 70423 Agency No. A089

- 773

- 572

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016 **
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS , Circuit Judges. Shuqin Liu , a native and citizen of China , petitions for review of th e Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her a ppeal from an immigration judge’ s decision denying her application for asylum, w ithholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is

* 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. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 70423

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for subst antial evidence the agency’ s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinati ons created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034,
1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). W e dismiss in part , deny in part, and grant in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Liu’s contentions regarding eligibility for
CAT relief because she did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction over cl aims not presented in administrative proceedings below).
Substanti al evidence supports the agency’ s adverse credibility determination
based on Liu’s omissions regarding having been kicked during her first interrogation and whether she was interrogated a second time during her detention , Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (“m ateri al alterations in the applicant’ s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding”) , as well as her contradictory explanation for her omission of the second interrogation , Liu v. Holder , 640 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2011) (improbable explanation for omission undermined credibility)

. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under t he totality of ci rcumstances)

. We lack jurisdiction to consider Liu’s due process claim, her contentions regarding demeanor, and her contentions that her detention, the passage of time, translation3 13

- 70423

errors, or her lack of English proficiency caused her inability to testify credibly
because she did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron , 358 F.3d at 678. In the absence of credible testimony, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
related to her past harm in China fail

. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The agency, however, erred in its assessment of Liu’s separate claims for
relief based on her current church attendance because it appeared to fault her for not providing any witnesses to corroborate her church atte ndance in the United States without considering the corrobor ating evidence she did provide , namely the
letters in the file from a pastor of the Temple City Immanuel Church of the
Nazarene and a pastor of the United Chinese Christian Church

. Thus , we grant the petition for review as to Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims based
on her current church attendance and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition

. See INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) ( per curiam). Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part ; GRANTED in part; and REMANDED.