Li v. Blanche

── Li v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT QIANG LI; FANG QIU; L. L., No. 25-770 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A245-207-432 A245-207-433 v. A245-207-434 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 30, 2026** Before: N.R. SMITH, BUMATAY, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Fang Qiu, Qiang Li, and their minor daughter,1 natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals * 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). 1 Ms. Qiu is the lead Petitioner. Ms. Qui’s spouse and their minor daughter seek asylum as derivative beneficiaries of Ms. Qui’s asylum application and did not file separate applications for relief. (“BIA”), dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order, which denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In its decision, the BIA adopted the IJ’s denial of Petitioners’ asylum and withholding applications based on an adverse credibility determination. The BIA also determined that Petitioners failed to meaningfully challenge the IJ’s finding that the objective evidence of record does not support a claim that Petitioners would be tortured in the future. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039– 45 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Considering the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The agency supported its adverse credibility determination with numerous specific and cogent reasons, including: (1) Ms. Qui’s impatient and evasive demeanor in testifying; (2) inconsistencies between medical documents and Ms. Qui’s testimony regarding dates and addresses for her forced abortion and contraceptive insertion; (3) Ms. Qui’s omission from her asylum application of her Beijing address and the calls she received from Family Planning Officers; (4) the inherent implausibility of returning to the same hospital (where Ms. Qui underwent a forced abortion) for 2 25-770 later pregnancy care; (5) Ms. Qui’s failure to retain any records of the 50,000 Yuan fine payment for her third child, while retaining older records of the 3,000 Yuan fine payment for first child; and (6) a lack of supporting documentation for her petition, such as authorization from Family Planning Office for the IUD removal and for her to have a second child; Ms. Qui’s identification card—the source of alleged address errors in other documents; or a declaration from Ms. Qui’s mother- in-law, whose warning about Family Planning Officers’ inquires allegedly instigated Petitioners’ flight from China. See 8 U.S.C. § 11