NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 2 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 13-70423 

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s 

factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We 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 claims not 

presented in administrative proceedings below). 

Substantial 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) (“material 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 the totality of circumstances). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Liu’s due process claim, her contentions regarding 

demeanor, and her contentions that her detention, the passage of time, translation 
 3 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 attendance in the United 

States without considering the corroborating 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.