Court Opinion

ID: 9374663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:01:03.782293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.329958
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AIFENG JIN,                                     No.    16-73199

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-798-996

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Aifeng Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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

      *
             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).
(“CAT”). We have 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 inconsistencies between the documentary evidence and his testimony

regarding when he attended a church and who paid his bond, omissions regarding

the severity of his beating and his hospital visit, Jin’s demeanor, and lack of

corroboration. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the

totality of the circumstances); see also Barseghyan v. Garland, 39 F.4th 1138,

1146 (9th Cir. 2022) (lack of documentation was one factor supporting adverse

credibility determination); Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263-64 (9th Cir.

2017) (agency’s demeanor finding was supported where IJ provided “specific,

first-hand observations,” and an inconsistency between applicant’s testimony and

documentary evidence undermined credibility); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969,

973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner’s omissions supported adverse credibility

determination where they did not constitute “a mere lack of detail” but “went to the

core of his alleged fear”). Jin’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion.

See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of

credible testimony, in this case, Jin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

                                          2                                       16-73199
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

      We do not address Jin’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)

(“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 Jin’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not

credible, and Jin 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 Jin 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.

                                         3                                     16-73199