N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YILI YOU, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-72763 Age n c y No. A215-855-306
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

Nove m b e r 17, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

n d B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B A TAILLON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
NOV 29 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Jose ph F. B ata illon, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ne b ra ska , sitting by de signa tion.Yili You, a native and c itiz e n of the Pe o ple ’ s R e public of C hina , pe t itions for re vie w of a

B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) de c ision dism issing he r
a ppe a l of a n Im m igration Judge(IJ) orde r de ny ing c l a im s for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (C AT). 1 All fa c tua l findings, inc luding theIJ’ s and B IA’ s c re dibility findings, a re re vie we d

for substa ntia l e vide nc e . C

ordon-Garc ia v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th C ir. 2000). Unde r the substa

ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd, we “ m u st uphold the

a ge nc y de te rm i nation unle ss the e vide nc e c om pe l s a c ontra ry c o n c lusion.” Duran-Rodrigue

z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2019); se e also Villav ic e nc io v . Se

ssions , 904 F.3d 658, 663–64 (9th C ir. 2018) (a s a m e nde d) (“ The B IA’ s fa c t

ua l findings a

re c onc lusive unle ss a

ny re a sona ble a d judic ator would be c om

pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry . ” (quoting Young v . Holde r , 697 F.3d 976, 981 (9th C ir. 2018))). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1),
and we de ny the pe tition. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation. The B IA found You not c re d ible be c a use of inc onsiste n c ie s be twe e n he r inte rvie w with C ustom s a nd B orde r Pat

rol (C B P) upon he r m ost

1 You ha s withdra

wn he r a ppe a l from

the de n ia l of he r a

pplic at ion for re lie f unde r C AT. 2re c e nt e ntry

into theUnite d State s, a

nd he r a sy lum

a pplic ation a

nd te s tim ony be fore the IJ. During he r inte rvie w with a C B P a ge nt, You te stifie d tha t he r prior
e ntrie s into theUnite d Stat e s we re to “ try [] to sta rt up a fa shion c om

pa ny ,” “ to find
som e work opportunity

in Ne w York,” and to “ [s] pe nd som e tim e with [he r] boy frie nd.” In he r a sy l um a pplic ation a

nd te stim ony

be fore the IJ, You c la im e d she c am e to the Unite d State s be c a use she wa s pe rse c ute d on a c c ount of he r
re ligion in C hina

and wa s “ looking for the [sic ] fre e dom

of re ligion.” This inc o nsiste nc y

wa s not trivial, but ra

the r we nt to thehe a

rt of pe titione r’ s c la im , he r
re a s on for le aving C hina
. Se e Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1046–47 (9th C ir. 2010) (e xpla ining tha t it is of gre at we ight whe n inc onsiste nc ie s go to thehe art of the pe titione r’ s c la im ). You wa s give n the c ha

nc e to e xpla in the inc onsiste nc y in he r re sponse s
re ga rding the purpose of he r trips to the U.S. Se e Rizk

v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011). B ut the IJ re a sona bly re j e c te d You’ s e xpla

n at ion tha t she did not know a sy lum

wa s a va i la ble for he r c a se at the tim e of he r C B P inte rvie w. Se e id. W ithout he r te stim ony , You fa ile d to e sta blish he r e ligibility

for a s y lum

or withholding of rem o v a l. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

3