Court Opinion

ID: 9365638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 18:01:02.512139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.652370
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YAN BAO CHEN,                                    No.   20-71501

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A208-990-435

 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 NGYUEN, Circuit Judges.

      Yan Bao Chen, 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’s”) 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 an inconsistency between Chen’s declaration and his testimony regarding

his brother’s cause of death, his demeanor, and his nonresponsive testimony. See

id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the

circumstances); see also 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); Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822,

839 (9th Cir. 2021) (“To support an adverse credibility determination based on

unresponsiveness, the BIA must identify particular instances in the record where

the petitioner refused to answer questions asked of him.” (internal alteration,

quotation marks and citation omitted)). Chen’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, Chen’s asylum and withholding

of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.

2003).

                                          2                                       20-71501
      We do not address Chen’s contentions as to 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)).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Chen’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not

credible, and Chen 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 Chen 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                                   20-71501