Court Opinion

ID: 9655118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:00:35.193715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:49:03.008753
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

CHAODUAN GUO,                                   No. 21-906
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A215-668-277
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Chaoduan Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial

evidence, 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 inconsistencies between Guo’s testimony and his sworn statement to

border officials as to the basis of his asylum claim, inconsistencies between his

testimony and application regarding the involvement of his cousin, and his

demeanor. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the

totality of circumstances). Guo’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, Guo’s asylum and withholding of

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

      In light of this disposition, we need not reach Guo’s remaining contentions

regarding the merits of his claims. 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).

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

because Guo’s claim was based on the same evidence the agency found not

credible, and Guo does not point to any other record evidence that compels the

                                        2                                    21-906
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 Guo 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                                   21-906