Background
Rongmin Zhao, a native and citizen of China, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
The court’s reasoning
The court treated the incorporated portions of the Immigration Judge’s decision as the Board’s own. It found substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies regarding when she learned she could apply for asylum, why she presented a medical certificate for a second intrauterine device insertion but not the first, and why she did not remove the device after entering the United States. The court also found substantial evidence supported the conclusion that she did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal through evidence independent of her testimony, noting the medical documents provided were of limited detail and questionable veracity.
What it means going forward
The denial reinforces the Ninth Circuit’s deference to agency credibility findings based on inconsistencies and demeanor, and clarifies that Convention Against Torture claims must be exhausted before the Board to be reviewable.