Lkhagvaa Tseren v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LKHAGVAA TSEREN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71836
Agency No. A088-571-197
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and PEARSON,*** District Judge.
Lkhagvaa Tseren, a native and citizen of Mongolia, seeks asylum and
* 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).
*** The Honorable Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
withholding of removal.1 The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Tseren was not
credible and denied Tseren’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. The
BIA affirmed, citing inconsistencies in Tseren’s narrative. Tseren petitioned this
court for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition because Tseren’s inconsistent and often contradictory statements
concerning the events that led her to leave Mongolia support the BIA’s adverse
credibility finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (adverse credibility findings
to be based on the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,”
including “consistency” of the evidence); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043
(9th Cir. 2010).
Specifically, Tseren offered conflicting statements regarding the number of
times she went to the police to discuss her husband’s abuse. On direct examination
at the hearing before the IJ, Tseren testified that she went to the police following
an altercation in April 2003 only once, in May 2003. However, in her asylum
application, Tseren declared that the police summoned her twice, once in May
2003 and once in June 2003.2 When confronted with this inconsistency, Tseren’s
1 Before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Tseren also sought relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Tseren has not challenged the
BIA’s rejection of her CAT claim. Tseren has therefore abandoned that claim
before us. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1090 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).
2 Tseren contends that the BIA erred in relying on this declaration because it “was
poorly translated with errors” and not read back to Tseren in her native language.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
only explanation was that she forgot that she had been summoned twice.
In her briefing Tseren contends that her statements are consistent because,
she asserts, she went to the police voluntarily one time, in May 2003, while she
was summoned the other, in June 2003. The record does not support Tseren’s
contention. At certain points Tseren stated that she voluntarily went to the police
in May 2003, while at others she stated that she was summoned. Accordingly,
Tseren’s explanation does not resolve the inconsistencies in her testimony. The
BIA’s finding that Tseren testified inconsistently as to how many times she
interacted with the police is supported by substantial evidence.
Tseren also made inconsistent statements regarding whether she
accompanied her father and sister to the police station on one occasion. At the
hearing, Tseren testified that her father and sister went to speak with the police
without her after Tseren told them about the 2003 incident. But in connection with
her asylum application, Tseren declared that she accompanied her father and sister.
Relatedly, Tseren gave inconsistent statements on what the police told her
father and sister. At the hearing, Tseren testified that the police told her father and
sister that she was to blame for starting the April 2003 altercation, but in a
declaration she stated that the police said they “were just trying to figure out what
Even if that is true, Tseren has not put forward any argument or evidence that the
statements in the declaration that the BIA relied on were a translation error or a
typo.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
was going on.”
Finally, Tseren was inconsistent on when her marriage ended. She told an
asylum officer that her marriage ended in 2004, but she maintained at the hearing
that her marriage ended in 2005. When asked during the hearing about the
inconsistency, Tseren testified that she had “stated” the “wrong” date to the asylum
officer. She offered no explanation for why she misremembered the year.
In light of Tseren’s inconsistent statements, substantial evidence supports
the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336
(9th Cir. 2013). Because Tseren has not presented a credible claim, the BIA
properly denied her application for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at
1336–38; see also Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 925–26 (9th Cir. 2011).
DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --