Court Opinion

ID: 9375023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 18:00:54.200329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.264276
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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

GENLONG MENG,                                   No.    15-71861

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A087-870-175

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 23, 2023**

Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Genlong Meng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming

the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention under Torture (“CAT”). We review for

      *
             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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.

3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law. Id. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

      1.     Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination of Meng’s

ineligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. While the BIA agreed with the

IJ’s denial of both claims for relief based on Meng’s adverse credibility, it also

affirmed the IJ’s alternative finding that, even assuming Meng’s credibility, he has

not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in

China. On appeal, Meng does not challenge this alternative ruling. Because Meng

cannot qualify as a “refugee” without a showing of past or future persecution, see 8

U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), Meng’s failure to appeal is fatal to his claims for asylum and

withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A). Accordingly,

the record does not compel reversing the denial of asylum and withholding.

      2.     Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. The

BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Meng was inconsistent about how long and how

badly he was abused by police, who introduced him to his church in the United

States, why he did not use his passport when first issued, and the conditions of his

release from detention. Meng argues on appeal that his testimony should have

deemed credible and that it would establish his CAT claim.

      The record supports the BIA’s credibility determination. Meng contends that

                                          2
the IJ erred by viewing inconsistencies between Meng’s declaration and testimonial

evidence about the conditions of his release from detention as damaging to Meng’s

credibility.   Meng contends any discrepancy in his declaration was due to

“mistakenly rel[ying]” on his non-attorney advisor in drafting the declaration. But

the IJ and the BIA are not required to credit these explanations. Zamanov v. Holder,

649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition, the IJ and BIA also relied on four

other discrepancies to support the adverse credibility finding. Given that Meng does

not appeal any of those findings, substantial evidence supports the adverse

credibility determination.

       The determination that Meng failed to proffer corroborative evidence was also

supported by substantial evidence. We uphold the BIA’s determination unless the

record “compels a contrary result.” Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th

Cir.2006). When a petitioner offers testimony alongside country condition reports,

and the petitioner’s testimony is found not credible, “to reverse the BIA’s decision

we would have to find that the reports alone compelled the conclusion that [Meng]

is more likely than not to be tortured.” Id. at 922–23. And although Meng’s reports

“confirm that torture takes place in [China], they do not compel the conclusion that

[Meng] would be tortured if returned.” Id. at 923.

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

       DENIED.

                                         3