Qiuzhu Ye v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIUZHU YE,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70172
Agency No. A099-910-317
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Qiuzhu Ye, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-70172
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 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). The
agency’s determination that an applicant knowingly made a frivolous application
for asylum is reviewed de novo for compliance with the procedural framework set
forth by the BIA. Kulakchyan v. Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Ye’s testimony and asylum declaration as to
whether she had a forced abortion in China, and her admitted misrepresentations
regarding the whereabouts of her ex-husband and first child and the identity of her
second child’s father. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Ye’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Ye’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-70172
Ye’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Ye does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of China. Id. at
1156-57.
The agency did not err in finding Ye filed a frivolous asylum application
where it complied with the procedural requirements of In re Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec.
151, 151-52 (BIA 2007). A preponderance of the evidence supports the IJ’s
finding that Ye deliberately fabricated a material element of her application. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.20 (“[A]n asylum application is frivolous if any of its material
elements is deliberately fabricated.”); Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 918-19 (9th
Cir. 2008). Further, Ye was given “ample opportunity . . . to address and account
for any deliberate, material fabrications[.]” See Ahir, 527 F.3d at 919 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --