NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PING SHEN; GUI YU PIAO,

 Petitioners,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 22-951

Agency Nos.

A087-888-879

A087-888-880

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Ping Shen (“Shen”) and Gui Yu Piao, natives and citizens of China, 

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

* 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

AUG 8 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-951

§ 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 inconsistencies in Shen’s asylum application, testimony, 

and other documentary evidence as to his identity, including his name and date 

of birth. See id. at 1040 (inconsistencies may be considered in assessing 

credibility under the totality of the circumstances); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 

785, 789-91 (9th Cir. 2014) (adverse credibility finding supported where 

petitioner lied about identity). Shen’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 petitioners did not 

present documentary evidence that would otherwise establish their eligibility for 

relief. See Garcia, 749 F.3d at 791 (applicant’s documentary evidence was 

insufficient to rehabilitate his testimony or independently support claim). 

In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ contentions 

regarding whether Shen’s asylum application was timely filed and whether, 

assuming Shen’s testimony was credible, they established eligibility for asylum 

and withholding of removal. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to 

the results they reach).
3 22-951

Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 

(9th Cir. 2003). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because petitioners’ claims were based on the same testimony the agency found 

not credible, and they do not point to any other evidence in the record that 

compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured in 

China. See id. at 1157.

We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their 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. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.