NING HE, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: October 22, 2019
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ning He, Pro Se Micah Engler, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Ning He, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by 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 an inconsistency between He’s testimony and the divorce decree as to the custody status of her son, as well as an inconsistency between He’s testimony and her visa application concerning her employment history. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that He’s corroborative evidence did not rehabilitate her testimony. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). 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).
He’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and He does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.