Lu v. Garland, 22-161

Petitioner Min Lu, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on an alleged forced abortion after an arrest in China.
An Immigration Judge found Lu not credible and denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that adverse credibility determination and the denials.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence and applied the special-deference standard for credibility findings.
The agency relied on multiple material inconsistencies in Lu’s testimony (who was present at arrest, who arrested her, whether a neighbor intervened, and who took her to the hospital), and found Lu’s explanations (nervousness, typographical errors) unpersuasive.
Hospital records corroborated that Lu was pregnant but did not prove she underwent a forced abortion; the court affirmed denial of CAT relief because it relied on the same non-credible testimony.
Derivative petitions of Lu’s husband and daughter failed because the lead petition failed; a motion for stay of removal was denied as moot (temporary stay remains until mandate).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports BIA’s adverse credibility finding	Lu: inconsistencies are minor or due to nervousness/typographical errors; hospital records corroborate pregnancy	BIA: multiple material inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim; explanations unsatisfactory	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility; petition denied
Whether hospital records corroborate a forced abortion	Lu: hospital report corroborates her account and supports forced-abortion claim	Government: records only corroborate pregnancy, not that an abortion was forced	Held: records do not establish forced abortion or overcome credibility defects
Whether CAT relief can be denied based on same credibility finding	Lu: CAT protections should be considered on their merits	Government: BIA may rely on same adverse credibility determination to deny CAT	Held: CAT denied because it was based on the same non-credible testimony
Whether derivative petitions and stay should be granted	Lu’s family sought derivative relief; a stay pending review was requested	Government: derivative claims depend on lead petitioner; stay not warranted if petition fails	Held: Derivative petitions denied; stay motion denied as moot (temporary stay until mandate)

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (review of BIA credibility determinations for substantial evidence)
Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (credibility findings entitled to special deference; relief only when evidence compels contrary conclusion)
Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (totality-of-circumstances standard for adverse credibility)
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2020) (nervousness is an unconvincing reason for testimonial inconsistencies)
Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954 (9th Cir. 2021) (agency not required to accept petitioner’s explanations for inconsistencies)
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA may rely on same adverse credibility finding to deny CAT claims)
Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2006) (derivative petitions fail when lead petitioner’s petition fails)