Zhou Qin Haung v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHOU QIN HAUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70223
Agency No. A087-619-386
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 9, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: OWENS, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Zhou Qin Haung, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final removal order, dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her asylum and withholding of
removal. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.
* 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).
FILED
SEP 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Haung argues that the IJ failed to analyze the “totality of the circumstances”
before making an adverse credibility finding, as required under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), because the IJ did not consider the statements she made in her
credible fear interview.1 According to Haung, these prior statements about her
claim of persecution—that she was forced to have an abortion under China’s one-
child policy—were consistent with her testimony before the IJ, and thus she should
have been found credible.
Section 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) merely lists factors that the trier of fact “may”
consider in determining credibility. The statute does not require that the trier of
fact specifically discuss any particular factor. “Because credibility determinations
are findings of fact by the IJ, they ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable
1 The government argues that we lack jurisdiction to consider this
argument because Haung did not administratively exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien
has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”).
Although Haung did not present this precise argument before the BIA, she
nonetheless “challenged the IJ’s overall credibility determination.” Zhi v. Holder,
751 F.3d 1088, 1094 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014). And the BIA reached the issue in
concluding that the IJ properly considered the totality of the circumstances, “a sub-
part of that overall [credibility] determination.” Id.; see also Rodriguez-Castellon
v. Holder, 733 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e may review any issue
addressed on the merits by the BIA, regardless whether it was raised to the BIA by
the petitioner.”). Thus, we have jurisdiction to review this argument.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Rizk v. Holder, 629
F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
In this case, the credible fear interview does not undermine the agency’s
decision to deny relief. The IJ may base an adverse credibility finding on
discrepancies that do not go “to the heart” of the asylum claim, so long as those
inconsistencies are “considered in light of the ‘totality of the circumstances.’”
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1040, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Here,
the IJ and BIA properly based the adverse credibility finding on numerous
inconsistencies in Haung’s testimony at the asylum hearing, even though the
discrepancies did not go to her forced abortion claim. Haung conceded that her
testimony was “all over the place.” For example, her testimony about when she
left China differed from the date stamped in her passport. Her testimony was also
inconsistent about how she left China and which countries she passed through in
her journey to the United States. Nothing in the credible fear interview compels a
contrary conclusion. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1087. Thus, the IJ and BIA did not err
in concluding that Haung failed to establish her eligibility for asylum and
withholding of removal.2
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 Because Haung failed to challenge the denial of Convention Against
Torture protection on appeal, she has waived review of this claim for relief. See
Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013).

-- 3 of 3 --