Court Opinion

ID: 9375024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 18:00:54.441516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:54.924074
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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

FANGYUN HE,                                     No.    17-71765

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-250-004

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 21, 2023**

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

      Fangyun He, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions

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

of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 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”).1 We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F. 3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction under

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

      1. The BIA denied He asylum based on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.

Substantial evidence supports that determination. For example, after claiming to be

arrested and beaten for attending an unsanctioned church, He did not leave China

for several months despite having a valid student visa. He also claimed to have

studied pharmaceutical engineering for four years, but she could not describe the

field except to say that it is “to produce drugs.” Even though she stated she had been

a practicing Christian for years and claims persecution based on her religion, she

failed to answer basic questions about Christianity.        While He offers some

explanations for her inconsistencies, the IJ and BIA were entitled to not credit her

explanations. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, the

IJ and BIA found that He’s documentary evidence did little to rehabilitate her

testimony or corroborate her claims.

      2. Because He’s credibility determination supports the denial of asylum, it

1
       Before the immigration judge (“IJ”), the IJ only addressed He’s asylum
application based on counsel’s apparent representation that He was waiving her
withholding of removal and CAT claims. He challenged that waiver finding before
the BIA. The BIA affirmed the waiver finding but alternatively concluded that the
IJ’s adverse credibility finding also supported the denial of withholding of removal
and CAT relief.

                                          2
follows that that the denial of withholding of removal is also supported. See Alvarez-

Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).2

      3. The adverse credibility findings also support the denial of CAT. “An

adverse credibility determination does not, by itself, necessarily defeat a CAT claim,

because CAT claims are analytically separate from claims for withholding of

removal. Rather, in determining whether a petitioner will more likely than not be

tortured if returned to his or her home country, all evidence relevant to the possibility

of future torture shall be considered. . . . Unless clear indications exist that the IJ or

BIA did not consider the documentary evidence, general language that the agency

considered all the evidence before it is sufficient.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,

791 (9th Cir. 2014) (simplified).      And here, nothing demonstrates that the BIA

neglected to consider all of the evidence before it.

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

      DENIED.

      2
       Because the adverse credibility finding supports the denial of asylum and
withholding of removal, we do not address He’s alternative arguments regarding
persecution.

                                            3