NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FANGYUN HE,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 71765

Agency No. A200

- 250

- 004

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted February 21, 2023 * *

Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Fangyun He, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial

of her application for asylum , withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture

* 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

FEB 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 (“CAT”)

. 1 We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde

Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F. 3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

1. The BIA denied He asylum based on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.

Substantial evidence supports th at determination

. For example, a fter claiming to be

arrested and beaten for attending an unsanctioned church, He did not leave China

for several months despite having a valid student visa. He also claimed to have

studied pharmaceutical engineering for four years, but s he could not describe the

field except to say that it is “ to produce drugs

. ” E ven though she stated she had been

a practicing Christian for years and claims persecution based on her religion, she

failed to answer basic questions about Christianity

. While He offers some

explanations for her inconsistencies, the IJ and BIA were entitled to not credit her

explanations

. Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, the

IJ and BIA found that He ’s documentary evidence did little to rehabilit at e her

testimony or corroborate her claims.

2. Because He ’s credibility determination supports the denial of asylum, it

1 Before the immigration judge (“IJ”) , t he IJ only addressed He’s asylum application based on counsel’s apparent representation that He was waiving her withholding of removal and CAT claims. He challenge d th at waiver findin g before

the BIA . The BIA affirme d the waiver finding but alternatively concluded that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding also supported the denial of withholding of removal

and CAT relief.3 follows that that the denial of withholding of removal is also supported

. See Alvarez

Santos v. INS , 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003). 2

3. The adverse credibility findings also support the denial of CAT

. “ An

adverse credibility determination does not, by itself, necessarily defeat a CAT claim,

because CAT claims are analytically separate from claims for withho lding of

removal . Rather, in determining whether a petitioner will more likely than not be

tortured if returned to his or her home country, all evidence relevant to the possibility

of future torture shall be considered. . . . Unless clear indications exis t that the IJ or

BIA did not consider the documentary evidence, general language that the agency

considered all the evidence before it is sufficient. ” Garcia v. Holder , 749 F.3d 785,

791 (9th Cir. 2014) ( simplified )

. And here, nothing demonstrates that the BIA

neglected to consider all of the evidence before it.

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

DENIED.

2 Because the adverse credibility finding supports the denial of asylum and withholding of remo val, we do not address He’s alternative arguments regarding persecution.