LIANG v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-04No. No. 16-70360

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of Liang's appeal from the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Dongmei Liang, a Chinese national, sought review of a decision denying her asylum application and related relief claims. The immigration judge found her testimony not credible based on inconsistencies in her account of key events—including who took her for a forced abortion, when it occurred, when she had her IUD removed, and what medical tests she underwent. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this credibility finding, and this court reviews such determinations only to determine whether substantial evidence supports them.

Liang argued that plausible explanations existed for the discrepancies in her statements. However, the immigration judge was not required to accept these explanations. Additionally, Liang did not meaningfully address the judge's observation about her demeanor—specifically her facial expressions and hesitations when questioned about the inconsistencies—which the judge considered significant to the credibility assessment. Because the evidence supporting the adverse credibility determination was substantial and Liang did not demonstrate that contrary evidence compelled a different conclusion, the petition was denied.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations in immigration proceedings
Whether inconsistencies in applicant's testimony about forced abortion and related events constituted material credibility problems
Weight given to demeanor and hesitation during testimony in credibility assessments
Applicant's burden to compel a contrary conclusion when challenging a credibility finding

Procedural posture

Liang petitioned for review of a BIA order that dismissed her appeal of an immigration judge's denial of her asylum and related protection applications.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Dongmei Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

“In reviewing an adverse credibility determination, we consider ‘the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and the reasoning articulated in the IJs decision in support of those reasons.’ ” Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up) (quoting Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014)). “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Id.

In upholding the IJs adverse credibility determination, the BIA relied on relevant factors, including Liangs demeanor and inconsistent statements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Liang provided inconsistent statements about the persons who forcibly took her from her home to have an abortion and the date that this occurred, the date that she secretly had her IUD removed, and the type of tests to which she was subjected in 2012. These inconsistencies were not “mere trivial error[s],” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010), but rather were important details about the events giving rise to her claim for relief. Although Liang argues that there are plausible reasons for the discrepancies that do not undermine her credibility, the IJ considered those explanations and was not required to accept them. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 739 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]o overturn an IJs adverse credibility determination, we must find that ‘the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.’ ” (cleaned up) (quoting Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011))). Moreover, Liang does not address the IJs finding that her facial expression and hesitation answering questions about the inconsistencies was a “significant” factor in the credibility ruling.

PETITION DENIED.