Langhua Huang; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANGHUA HUANG; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70198
Agency Nos. A206-654-914
A206-654-915
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Langhua Huang and her minor child, natives and citizens of China, petition
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* 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
NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70198
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Huang’s asylum application and her testimony
regarding the timing of her claimed harm and whether she requested an alternative
means of contraception. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances). Huang’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000); see
also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to
accept explanations for inconsistencies). The agency also provided specific
examples in the record and a sufficient explanation to support its finding that
Huang’s demeanor indicated a lack of credibility. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d
1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this
case, petitioners’ asylum claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
To the extent petitioners challenge the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal and CAT, we lack jurisdiction to consider their contentions because
petitioners did not exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70198
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented
to the agency).
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s denial of their
due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Corro-Barragan v.
Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening
brief resulted in waiver).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --