Qi Si and her minor child, H.M.H., natives of China, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied their claims, making an adverse credibility finding against Si and determining that their corroborating evidence was insufficient to independently support the asylum claim. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioners filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit, challenging the adverse credibility finding and the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence. The court noted that the child did not file an independent application for withholding or CAT protection, and the petitioners only challenged the asylum claim in their petition.
The panel reviewed the case under the substantial evidence standard, which requires the court to uphold the agency's factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Regarding the adverse credibility determination, the court looked to the Immigration Judge's oral decision as the guide for the BIA's reasoning. The BIA identified six instances of discrepancies in Si's testimony. The court reasoned that even if some inconsistencies were based on mischaracterizations or trivial facts, the finding that false information was submitted in the application alone supported the adverse credibility determination. The court emphasized that the agency is not required to accept a petitioner's explanation for a discrepancy and that only extraordinary circumstances justify overturning such a finding. Regarding the corroborating evidence, the court found that petitioners forfeited this argument because they did not meaningfully challenge the Immigration Judge's finding that the evidence was insufficient to independently support the claim in their brief to the BIA. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, failure to raise an issue before the BIA deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear that matter.
The petition for review is denied, and the BIA's order denying asylum and withholding of removal stands as the final administrative decision. The court lifted the temporary stay of removal effective immediately, meaning the petitioners are subject to removal unless they obtain further relief. The decision reinforces that a single instance of false information in an application can sustain an adverse credibility finding, and it highlights the strict requirement to exhaust arguments regarding corroborating evidence before the BIA to preserve them for appellate review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download