Court Opinion

ID: 9365291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 18:00:39.54551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:44.510000
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

YAN ZHUANG; QINGYUAN ZHOU,                      No.    16-73857

                Petitioners,                    Agency Nos.       A201-052-878
                                                                  A201-052-879
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Yan Zhuang and Qingyuan Zhou, natives and citizens of China, petition pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, and

denying Zhuang’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under

      *
             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).
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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

determinations based on inconsistencies within Zhou’s testimony regarding his

knowledge of the religious nature of the house church gatherings and any resulting

problems, and inconsistencies between petitioners’ testimony as to when Zhou

learned of Zhuang’s arrest, how Zhuang was transported home from the detention

center, and whether Zhou accompanied Zhuang to the police station for reporting.

See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of

circumstances”). Petitioners’ 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 v.

Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s documentary evidence was

insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible

testimony, in this case, petitioners’ asylum claim and Zhuang’s withholding of

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

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Zhuang’s CAT claim

                                          2                                    16-73857
because it was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and the

record does not otherwise compel 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. See id. at 1157.

      In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions regarding their eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371

F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary

to the results they reach).

      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) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                   16-73857