Court Opinion

ID: 6317356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-24 21:00:37.826491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:35.142316
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 24 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEN HAO HE,                                     No.    20-70454

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A209-850-460

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Wen Hao 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 decision denying his application for asylum and withholding

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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, 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 misrepresentations He made to immigration officials. See id. at 1048

(adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of

circumstances”); see also Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011)

(absent establishing that an exception applies, “[a]n asylum applicant who lies to

immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story”).

He’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, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

      We do not reach He’s contentions regarding corroboration, 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), or his remaining contentions

regarding the merits of his asylum or withholding of removal claims, see

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is

limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).

      We do not consider the materials He references in his opening brief that are

                                          2                                     20-70454
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 issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                   20-70454