Jing Hua Jin v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JING HUA JIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71954
Agency No. A099-900-891
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jing Hua Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* 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
JUN 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71954
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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Jin did not
demonstrate she timely filed her asylum application or that she qualified for an
exception to the filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(3); see also Ramadan v.
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 649-54 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining court has jurisdiction
to review time-bar finding only when the underlying facts are undisputed). Thus,
we dismiss the petition as to Jin’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies in Jin’s testimony and between her testimony and
declaration regarding the timing of her second abortion, and inconsistencies
between Jin’s testimony and declaration regarding her parents’ arrest. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances). In the absence of credible testimony, Jin’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --