Gui YANG, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: July 10, 2020
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Gui Yang, Pro Se Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Brooke Maurer, 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
Gui Yang, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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 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 a significant omission—an alleged May 2009 police beating Yang's parents apparently suffered—from Yang's written statement. Id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances); Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-40 (9th Cir. 2014) (substantial evidence review is a highly deferential standard that requires upholding the adverse credibility finding so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 972-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (omissions from asylum application supported adverse credibility determination). Yang's explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. Id. at 974 (agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, Yang's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of Yang's CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Yang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
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.