YUQIN GAO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 16-70847 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YUQIN GAO, No. Petitioner, 16-70847 Agency No. A089-877-246 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: IKUTA, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Yuqin Gao, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her administrative appeal of an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The record demonstrates that Gao was unable to articulate basic details about her alleged forced sterilization procedure. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The lack of detail in an applicant’s testimony can be a relevant factor for assessing credibility.”). The record also supports the IJ’s finding that Gao’s testimony was inconsistent with her asylum application, including as to the year in which Gao was sterilized and whether Yunfeng Gao (her alleged first son) was actually her child. Further, the record demonstrates inconsistencies regarding Gao’s arrest and detention for participating in a Christian house church. These inconsistencies were not “utterly trivial . . . such as a typographical error.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010). Rather, these inconsistencies were “at issue” in evaluating Gao’s claims that she was persecuted on account of her political opinion and her religion. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020). Likewise, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s upholding of the IJ’s finding that Gao’s testimony lacked credibility because she admitted to departing China with a valid passport 2 and visa shortly after her arrest and while she was allegedly required to report weekly to the police, despite asserting that she was a fugitive. Additionally, the IJ reasonably relied on the lack of corroborating evidence, including as to Gao’s sterilization procedure, her employment, and her termination from her employment after her arrest in 2008. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). Without Gao’s testimony or the corroborating evidence identified by the IJ, the record does not compel the conclusion that she was forced to undergo an involuntary sterilization or that she is a religious refugee, and is therefore insufficient to carry her burden of establishing eligibility for relief. See id. Because Gao did not raise her withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture claims, or her claim that the IJ violated the procedure set forth in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011), in her administrative appeal to the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider these unexhausted claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3
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.
