NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIUZHU YE, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 13-70172 

Agency No. A099-910-317 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Qiuzhu Ye, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s 

(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 

 

* 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

APR 16 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-70172 

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). The 

agency’s determination that an applicant knowingly made a frivolous application 

for asylum is reviewed de novo for compliance with the procedural framework set 

forth by the BIA. Kulakchyan v. Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013). 

We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies between Ye’s testimony and asylum declaration as to 

whether she had a forced abortion in China, and her admitted misrepresentations 

regarding the whereabouts of her ex-husband and first child and the identity of her 

second child’s father. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding 

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Ye’s explanations do not

compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 

2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Ye’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 

(9th Cir. 2003).
3 13-70172 

Ye’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the 

agency found not credible, and Ye does not point to any other evidence in the 

record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of China. Id. at 

1156-57.

The agency did not err in finding Ye filed a frivolous asylum application 

where it complied with the procedural requirements of In re Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 

151, 151-52 (BIA 2007). A preponderance of the evidence supports the IJ’s 

finding that Ye deliberately fabricated a material element of her application. See 8 

C.F.R. § 1208.20 (“[A]n asylum application is frivolous if any of its material 

elements is deliberately fabricated.”); Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 918-19 (9th 

Cir. 2008). Further, Ye was given “ample opportunity . . . to address and account 

for any deliberate, material fabrications[.]” See Ahir, 527 F.3d at 919 (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.