YABIN BI V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-70847 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YABIN BI, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-70847 Agency No. A201-187-728 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Yabin Bi, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the convention against torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 103940 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on Bi’s demeanor and inconsistencies as to whether she had an IUD inserted after her forced abortion and the preparation of the notes she brought to her asylum interview. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Bi’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Bi’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Bi’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Bi does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. 2 20-70847 We do not consider the materials Bi references in her opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 20-70847
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.
