Case Name: YINGZI LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-12
Citations: 692 F. App'x 452
Docket Number: No. 14-72633
Parties: YINGZI LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 452–453

Head Matter:
YINGZI LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72633
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 8, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed June 12, 2017
Dennis James Eoffe, Attorney, Law Office of Dennis Eoffe, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Sarah K. Per-golizzi, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Yingzi Lin seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") order denying Petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016), we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's adverse credibility determination. Petitioner gave non-responsive answers to three separate questions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1) (B) (iii) (permitting the IJ to consider the "responsiveness of the applicant" in making a credibility determination). She also testified inconsistently about whether the birth control official was from her neighborhood or from her place of employment. Petitioner's explanation to us that perhaps the same person was in charge of both areas contradicts her clear testimony that the official was from her neighborhood only. Because some substantial reasons support the BIA's decision, we need not consider the BIA's other reasons. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2014).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's analysis of the documents in the record. The BIA permissibly found that, even if the documents in the record were credited, they did not establish that Petitioner's abortion was forced. Accordingly, Petitioner could not establish her claims for relief from removal without credible testimony.
Petition DENIED;
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.