Hong Gao v. Todd Blanche

── Hong Gao v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HONG GAO; et al., No. 18-72500 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-545-551 A206-545-552 v. A206-545-553 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 23, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and SCARSI,*** District Judge. Petitioner Hong Gao, along with her husband, Hailong Xiang, and her minor child, Y.X., as derivative applicants, petitions for review of a decision of the Board * 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 Mark C. Scarsi, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.” Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020)). Adverse credibility determinations are factual findings, so we review them for substantial evidence. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). Under the substantial evidence standard, “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020)). 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Taking into account the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors,” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), the agency identified several reasons, each supported by evidence in the record, for finding Petitioner not credible. Specifically, the agency identified inconsistencies in Petitioner’s description of her employment at the fishery and at Tianen 2 International, Petitioner’s account of the insertion and removal of intrauterine devices, and Petitioner’s statements about her forced abortion. Petitioner also admitted to submitting false information about her education history in her visa application. Although Petitioner argues that the inconsistencies are trivial, the agency was not required to credit Petitioner’s proffered explanations or disregard the inconsistencies. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 960-61 (9th Cir. 2021). Together, the agency’s “specific and cogent reasons supporting [its] adverse credibility determination” satisfy the substantial evidence standard. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner does not argue that the agency erred in concl