NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIN HUANG, No. 19-72335

Petitioner, Agency No. A215-828-850

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Qin Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s 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). 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We

deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Huang references in her opening brief that

are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64

(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies between Huang’s testimony and documentary evidence as

to the date of her baptism, when she began attending church, the reason she applied

for a 2016 visa, and who prepared her 2018 visa application, and based on

testimony that was improbable or evasive. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047-48

(finding adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of the

circumstances”, in part because “when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim

it doubtless is of great weight”). Huang’s explanations do not compel a contrary

conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence

of credible testimony, Huang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Huang’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible,

2 19-72335 and Huang 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 if returned to China. See id. at 1157.

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 19-72335