Court Opinion

ID: 9555338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 18:03:14.270364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:22.662282
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                       FILED
                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 11 2023
                                                                  MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                   U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BINGUIN NI,                                    No. 22-647
                                               Agency No.
             Petitioner,
                                               A208-069-695
 v.
                                               MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted July 17, 2023 **
                            San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Binguin Ni (“Ni”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judges (“IJ”) denial of his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252, and we deny the petition.

      *     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 supports the agency’s decision that Ni was not

credible and did not bear his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum or

withholding of removal. Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 723 (9th Cir.

1997). The agency identified specific incongruities between Ni’s testimony and

documentary evidence, including the certificate of sterilization which he claimed

to have used in July 2012 to register his son, but which bore an issue date of

September 2012. Additionally, in Ni’s 2014 handwritten statement submitted

with his asylum application, he wrote that the critical events giving rise to his

asylum claim―his second child’s birth, his wife’s sterilization, and receipt of a

fine notice from family planning―occurred in 2006, 2007 and 2008. He later

corrected these dates to describe these events as occurring in 2011, 2012 and

2013, but his only explanation for the change was that he must have written it

down wrong the first time. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.

2011) (IJ may reject even plausible explanations). The agency also permissibly

relied on Ni’s evasive demeanor, particularly when answering questions about his

travel to other countries besides the United States (which he first denied and then

offered changing explanations for). The agency provided specific and cogent

reasons to support the adverse credibility determination, Shrestha v. Holder, 590

F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010), and the record does not compel the conclusion

that Ni was credible.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Ni’s application

for CAT protection, because he failed to establish that “it is more likely than not

                                         2                                   22-647
that he . . . would be tortured if removed” to China and that such torture would

be inflicted by or with the acquiescence of a public official. Garcia-Milan v.

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). “[W]hen

the petitioner’s ‘testimony [is] found not credible, to reverse the BIA's decision

[denying CAT protection,] we would have to find that the reports alone compelled

the conclusion that [the petitioner] is more likely than not to be tortured.’”

Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49 (alteration in original) (quoting Almaghzar v.

Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006)). The BIA concluded the

country conditions reports here were insufficient to show Ni demonstrated a

particularized risk of torture, Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir.

2021), and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion.

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

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        3                                   22-647