N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHAO YU C HEN, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-72310 Age n c y No. A097-357-046 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 April 12, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd TR OTT, C i rc u it Judge s. Sha o Yu C h e n, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , se e ks re vie wof a fina l orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) dism i ssing he r a ppe a l from

an Im m i gration Judge ’ s (IJ) de c i sion de ny ing he r a pplic at ion for a sy lum , spe c ia l rule



# FIL ED APR 15 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. 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).c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l , withholding of rem ova l, or prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. B e c a use the B IA issue d its own opinion, but a lso inc orporate d

the IJ’ s re a s oning, we re vie wboth theB IA’ s a nd the IJ’ s de c isions toge the r. Se e Malk andi v . Holde r , 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th C ir. 2008). TheB IA’ s “ findings of fa c t a re c onc lusive unle ss a

ny re a s ona ble a djudic ator would bec om p e lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry .” Ramos-Lope

z v . Holde r , 563 F.3d 855, 858 (9th C ir. 2009) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d) ( abrogate d on othe r grounds by He nriquezRiv a s v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc )). 1. The B IA re a sona

bly de te rm ine d tha

t C he n’ s untim e ly

a sy l um a pplic ation did not qua lify

for an e xc e ption to the

one -y e ar bar. W e will uphold the B IA’ s de te rm i nation if it “ is supporte d by re a sona ble , substa

ntia l, a n d proba t ive e v ide nc e on the re c ord c onside re d a s a whole .” Al Ramahi v . Holde r , 725 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th C ir. 2013) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ). An a sy lum a pplic ant ordina

rily m ust pre s e nt c le ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e tha t she file d a

n a pplic ation for a sy lum within oney e ar of he r a

rriva l into the

Unite d State s. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ). The gove rnm e n t m ay

c onside r a

late -file d a

pplic ation if thea

pplic ant e s ta

blishe s: 2(1) c h ange d c irc um sta n c e s tha t m ate ria lly

a ffe c t the a

pplic a n t’ s e l igibility

for a sy lum ; or (2) e xtra o rdina ry c irc um sta

nc e s dire c tly

re late d to the de la

y in filing the a pplic a tion. Singh v . Holde r , 656 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th C ir. 2011) (c i ting 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(D; 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(4)(i), (5)). If an a pplic a nt pre se nts e vide nc e that would qua lify

he r for the “ c ha

nge d c i rc um sta

nc e s” e xc e ption, shem

ust still de m onstra

te tha t she a pplie d for a sy lum

within a “ re a sona ble pe riod.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a )(4)(ii). Like wise , if a n a pplic ant pre se nts e vide nc e tha t would qualify

he r for the “ e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s” e xc e ption, shem

ust still dem onstra

te that any de l ay wa s “ re a sona

ble unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(5). C he n e nte re d the Unite d Stat e s on Ja nua ry 25, 2005, a

nd did not file

he r a sy lum a pplic a tion until Oc tobe r 25, 2007. C h e n c onte nds tha t he r a sy lum

c la im de ve lope d a fte r he r April 22, 2007 ba ptism , whic h

m arke d he r form a l c o nve rsion to C hristia

nity . B ut C he n

offe rs no e xpla

nation for why

she wa ite d ove r six m onths a fte r he r ba

p tism to file he r a sy lum

c la im . And whilepe titione r a lso c onte nds tha

t she wa s e ntitle d to a sy l um ba se d on he r pre gna

n c y with he r se c ond c hild, shedoe s not e xpla i n why he r ba ptism , on its own, wa s insuffic ie nt to c a use he r to se e k a sy l um . Unde r the s e c irc um sta nc e s, it wa s re a s ona

ble for the B IA to de te rm i ne tha

t C he n unre a sona

bly de la y e d in filing her a

pplic ation for a sy lum .

32. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t C he n did not qua lify for withholding of rem ova l or C AT prote c tion. C he n doe s not c la im pa st pe rse c ution in C h ina , and the B IA re a sona bly de te rm ine d tha

t C he n fa ile d

to de m onstra

te tha t she is m ore like ly

tha n not to fa c e pe rse c ution dueto he r C hristia n be lie fs or the birth of he r se c ond c hild in the Unite d State s. C he n ha s not provide d e vide nc e tha t she wa s pe rsona l ly

at risk of pe rse c ution ba s e d on he r re ligion, a nd she offe rs no e xpla

n at ion why

she would a tte nd a c hurc h tha

t is not a uthoriz e d by

the C hine s e gove rnm e nt. In a ny e ve nt, e vide nc e in the re c ord de m onstra te s tha t re ligious perse c ution va rie s wide ly

in C hina de p e nding on re g i on, provinc e , politic s, a nd e thnic i ty . C he n’ s c la im tha t she would be pe rse c ute d due to he r C hristia n re ligious be lie fs is too spe c ulative for re lie f. Se e N

agoulk o v . I.N .S. , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016–18 (9th C ir. 2003). Nor ha s C he n produc e d

e vide nc e tha

t the re is a

c le ar proba

b ility tha t she would fa c e pe rse c ution due to he r viola tion of C hine se fam ily

pla nning polic y . C he n fa ile d to de m o n strat e tha t C hine se a

uthoritie s would ta

rge t a wom an who gave birth to he r se c ond c hild in the Unite d State s, rathe r tha

n in C h ina . S

e e Arriaga-Barrie

ntos v . I.N

. S. , 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th C i r. 1991) (e vide nc e of viole nc e m

u st support a

“ patte rn of pe rse c ution c lose ly tie d to the pe titione r” ); c

f . Yan Rong Zhao v . Holde r , 728 F.3d 1144, 1150–51 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe titione r 4offe re d e vide nc e she would pe rsona lly fa c e ste riliz ation). Substa n tia l e vide nc e in the re c ord a lso supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t C hina ’ s fam i ly

pla nning polic ie s a re not uniformly

e nforc e d, a

nd C he n ha s offe re d no e vide nc e of the re gion to whic h she would re turn in C hina le t a lone how stric tly

the polic ie s a

re e nforc e d the re . C

f. Yan Rong Zhao 728 F.3d a t 1147–48 (noting tha

t a pe titione r c ould de m o nstra

te an obje c tive l y

re a sona ble fe ar of pe rse c ution by providing e vide nc e of provinc ia l polic y or of stric t e nforc e m e nt of tha t polic y in he r c ity

or town). 3. TheB IA re a sona

bly de te rm ine d tha

t C he n doe s not qua lify

for spe c ia l rule c anc e lla tion of re m ova l . Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s de te rm ination tha

t C he n’ s te stim ony

in support of spe c ia l rule c anc e lla tion of re m ova l wa s not c re d ible . As the B IA e xpla ine d , C he n’ s te stim ony c onta ine d

“ spe c ific an d c oge nt disc re pa nc ie s , suc h a s the signific anc e and na ture of the a l le ge d a

buse , a nd the de ta ils re g arding how [C he n ’ s ] husba nd a lle ge dly

took he r m one y .” Furthe r, c ontra ry to C he n’ s c o nte ntion, theIJ wa s not re quire d to find c re dible C he n’ s te stim ony in support of her a

pplic ation for spe c ia l rule c anc e lla tion sim ply be c a u se C he n’ s othe r te stim ony

wa s c re dible . C

f. Lozano Ente rs. v . N

.L.R.B. , 327 F.2d 814, 816 n.2 (9th C ir. 1964) (“ The rule tha t a witne ss m ay

be tota lly disbe lie ve d if he is found to ha

ve te stifie d fa lse ly in a

ny re spe c t is not a c om m and.” ). 5PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

6