Court Opinion

ID: 9380245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 18:00:51.03468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.724957
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAI QING HE,                                    No.    20-70455

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A209-431-920

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Hai Qing He, 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 and

withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

      *
             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).
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 in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on He’s admission of visa fraud, an inconsistency and implausibility

regarding his occupation and business-ownership, and his nonresponsive testimony

regarding his own religious practices. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th

954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (false information on visa application was an appropriate

factor to consider in the adverse credibility determination). He’s explanations do

not compel a contrary conclusion. See Li, 13 F.4th at 961 (IJ not compelled to

accept explanations for discrepancies). Substantial evidence also supports the

agency’s determination that He did not present documentary evidence that would

otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,

791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s documentary evidence was insufficient to

rehabilitate his testimony or independently support his claim). Thus, in the

absence of credible testimony, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

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

                                           2                                   20-70455
      We do not address He’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of his

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)).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider He’s contentions as to protection under the

Convention Against Torture because he did not raise them to the agency. See

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

to review claims not presented below).

      We do not consider the materials He 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 in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                         3                                   20-70455