Court Opinion

ID: 9554385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 20:01:16.399621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:29.161303
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             AUG 8 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PING SHEN; GUI YU PIAO,                         No. 22-951
                                                Agency Nos.
             Petitioners,                       A087-888-879
                                                A087-888-880
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

             Respondent.

                   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).
§ 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).

                                        2                                     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.

                                         3                                     22-951