MEMORANDUM **
Wei Mu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judges denial of her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and, reviewing the BIAs “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence,” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted), we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Mu was not credible and thus ineligible for relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Mu repeatedly testified that she was alone in her home when five policemen arrested her for hosting an illegal religious gathering in 2010. Her asylum application, however, stated that she was with her family during the arrest. “[I]nconsistencies regarding events that form the basis of the asylum claim are sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination.” Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). And contrary to Mus contention, this was not an “utterly trivial inconsistency,” like a spelling or typographical error. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010).
In addition, Mu testified that she was employed at the Water Bureau from 1983 to 2010, despite her visa application stating that she stopped working there in 1999. When asked about this, Mu provided inconsistent testimony. She first told the court that she left the department in 1999 but came back, and that she did not know why her application was false. Yet at a subsequent hearing, she admitted that that explanation had been a lie, and that a middle agent had instructed her to fabricate her employment dates to better her chances of obtaining a visa. Mu may have had reason to fabricate her employment dates when trying to obtain the visa, but not to lie in court after she had been away from danger for more than six years. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011). Given the contradictions in Mus accounts, and the insufficiency of her purportedly corroborative evidence, the record supports the agencys denial of asylum.
PETITION DENIED.