NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHUNKAI LAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 22-805

Agency No.

A087-827-200

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Chunkai Lan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

* 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

JAN 23 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-805

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, 

1039‐40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on demeanor, lack of responsiveness, and an omission. See id. at 1048 

(adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see 

also Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he IJ 

is in the best position to consider a petitioner’s demeanor, candor, and 

responsiveness.”). Lan’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See

Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also 

supports the agency’s determination that Lan did not present documentary 

evidence that would otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. 

Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s documentary evidence was 

insufficient to rehabilitate his testimony). Thus, in the absence of credible 

testimony, in this case, Lan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See

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

We do not address Lan’s contentions as to the merits of his asylum and 

withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not deny relief on these 

grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) 
3 22-805

(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon 

by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Lan’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not 

credible, and Lan does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels 

the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See

Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.

We do not consider the materials Lan references in his 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).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.