WEIPING JI V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-70171 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEIPING JI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-70171 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-696-955 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Weiping Ji, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 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, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies regarding whether Ji suffered a forced abortion or miscarriage, the cause of her alleged fertility issues, and the level of testing required to make a fertility diagnosis. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Ji’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Ji’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, Ji’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the finding that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-70171
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.
