YINJI PEI V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71885 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YINJI PEI, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-71885 Agency No. A099-901-580 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Yinji Pei, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies as to the number of times Pei was interrogated, what information she revealed to police, and the length and type of medical care she required. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Pei’s explanations do not compel the opposite result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Pei’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Jiang, 754 F.3d at 740. Pei’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Pei does not point to any other evidence that compels the finding it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned. See id. at 740-41. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71885
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
