NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANAN SUN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70003 

Agency No. A205-554-644 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 

Yanan Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* 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 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-70003 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 grant in part and dismiss in part the petition for 

review, and we remand. 

The BIA found no clear error in three factual findings the IJ relied on in 

support of an adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence does not 

support two of those findings, specifically, the finding of an omission as to Sun’s

exposure to Christianity and the finding that Sun failed to provide sufficient details 

as to her practice of Christianity. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1087 (9th Cir. 

2011) (substantial evidence did not support the agency’s adverse credibility 

findings where they were based on mischaracterizations of the record); see also 

Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2020) (petitioner's account 

determined sufficiently descriptive of pertinent events and where the agency did 

not identify which portions of testimony were lacking in detail). Thus, substantial 

evidence only supports the single remaining ground of the agency’s adverse 

credibility determination, specifically, the finding of inconsistencies between Sun’s 

testimony and supporting documents as to an encounter with police. See Shrestha, 

590 F.3d at 1043-45 (overview of the analysis required to determine whether an 

inconsistency can support an adverse credibility determination). 
3 20-70003 

An adverse credibility determination must be made and reviewed “based on 

the ‘totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors,’ not a single factor.” See

Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Thus, we grant the petition for review and we remand Sun’s 

asylum and withholding of removal claims on an open record to the BIA for 

reconsideration of the adverse credibility determination in light of the “totality of 

the circumstances [ ] and all relevant factors.” Id. at 1135 (emphasis omitted) 

(citation omitted); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); 

Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Sun’s contentions regarding 

past persecution. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the 

court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).

As to CAT relief, neither the IJ nor the BIA addressed Sun’s country 

conditions evidence in the assessment of whether she had identified any record 

evidence apart from her testimony found not credible that compelled the 

conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the 

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. This was 

error. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Because 

the BIA failed to consider the Country Report at all, the proper course of action is 

to remand with instructions that the BIA reconsider [petitioner’s] CAT claim in 
4 20-70003 

light of the Country Report.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Sun’s 

CAT claim and we remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this 

disposition. See id.; see also Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16-18.

We do not consider the materials Sun references in her 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). 

To the extent Sun raises a political opinion claim, a disfavored group claim, 

and contends she was not allowed to fully testify as to how she was introduced to 

Christianity, we lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions. See Barron v. 

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review 

issues or claims not presented below).

Sun’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.

The parties must bear their own costs on appeal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DISMISSED in part; 

REMANDED.