N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
YAOW EI HOU,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ATTHEW

G. W H ITAKER , Ac ting Attorney

Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-71203 Age n c y No. A089-970-909
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 18, 2019 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , C L IFTON, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Ya owe i Hou, a native and c i tiz e n of the Pe ople ’ s R e public of C hina (“ PR C ” ), pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a l s’ orde r a ffirm ing the im

m igration judge ’ s de nia l of his a p plic at ion for a sy lum , withholding



# FIL ED JAN 25 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture . W e de ny the pe tition. Hou c onte nds the B IA’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . W e disa g re e . C re dibility

a sse ssm e nts a

re m a de “ ba se d on the ‘ tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s’ and

‘ a ll re le va nt fa c tors.’ ” Bingx u J

in v . Holde r , 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii)). “ [O] nly the m ost e xtra ordina ry c irc um s ta nc e s will justify

ove rturning a

n a dve rse c re dibility

de t e rm i nation.” Id. (quoting Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2010))
. The IJ de te rm ine d Hou’ s te stim ony a ppe are d “ re he arse d or rote , rathe r tha n a re c olle c tion of a c t

ua l e xpe rie nc e s in the PR C .” The IJ note d Hou’ s a lle gations of
e xtre m e m istre at

m e nt ove r a

one -we e k pe riod c onflic te d with his la te r te stim ony that his wounds were not se rious e nough to wa rrant m e d ic a l tre atm e nt. The IJ found Hou’ s te stim ony

tha t he wa s subje c t to polic e supe rvision inc onsiste n t with the fa c ts tha

t C hine se a

uthoritie s e xc use d him

from a m andatory

re porting m e e ting,
a llowe d him

to tra ve l to B e ijing to a

tte nd a visa inte rvie w , and gra

nte d him pe rm ission to le ave the c ountry . Hou’ s atte nda nc e at a Spanish c ongre gation de spite not spe aking the la ngua ge , his fa ilure to te ll his pa stor a bout his re ligious pe rse c ution, a

nd his de c ision to be

ba ptiz e d only

a fte r his c a se wa s re fe rre d to
2im

m igration c ourt le d the IJ to de te rm ine Hou’ s re l igious a c tivity in the Unite d Stat e s wa s done “ prim arily to support his pe

nding a sy l um

re que st.” W e the re fore
c onc lude the re wa s substa ntia l e vide nc e to support the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation. Se e Mane s v . Se ssions , 875 F.3d 1261, 1263-64 (9th C i r. 2017). W ith Hou’ s te stim ony

prope rly re je c te d, the only

othe r e vide nc e re le va

nt to Hou’ s fe ar of pe rse c ution wa s ge ne ra l ba c kground inform at ion c onc e rning
c onditions in the

PR C . Although individua ls de e m e d “ politic a lly

se nsitive ” m ay fa c e diffic ultie s the re , the IJ note d tha t Hou fa i le d to c onne c t tha t inform ation to his situa tion, sinc e it a

ppe are d he wa s a

ble to tra ve l within a

n d le ave the PR C without gre at diffic u l ty . W e thus a lso c onc lude substa ntia l e vide n c e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t H o u fa ile d to de m onstra te e ligibility

for a sy lum
. Se e Barrios v . Holde r , 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th C ir. 2009) (upholding B IA’ s de c ision ba se d on a

la c k of e v ide n c e ). B e c a

use Hou fa ile d to m e e t the burde n of proof for his a sy lum c la i m , he is una ble t o sa tisfy the highe r “ c le ar proba b i lity ” of pe rse c ution sta

n da rd to be e ligiblefor m andatory withholding of rem ova l
. Pe dro-Mate o v . IN

S , 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th C ir. 2000). For the sa m e re a sons, we c onc lude substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Hou fa i le d to de m onstra

t e it wa s m ore like l y

tha n not tha t he would

3be torture d upon re turning to the PR C and wa s the re fore ine ligiblefor C AT prote c tion. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4