Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Wanhe DENG, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM ***
Petitioner Wanhe Deng is a native and citizen of China. He seeks review of a final order of removal after the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing standard). For example, Petitioner testified that he had no plans to leave China before his arrest in October 2010. But he applied to the American Language Institute at San Francisco State University in June 2010, and sought a student visa in July 2010. In addition, Petitioner's accounts of how often he attended a house church, and about when he learned that such gatherings were illegal, were inconsistent. The agency was required to consider Petitioner's explanations, see Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (holding that a “petitioner's explanation for the inconsistency, if any, should be considered in weighing credibility” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and it did. It was not required to credit those explanations. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011).
2. The immigration judge fairly noted that Petitioner failed to provide corroborating evidence of his claims. At the very least, Petitioner presents no evidence that leaves us “compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). Petitioner's argument that he “should not have to ‘create’ documents to support his claim” is insufficient.
3. Petitioner does not argue before us that the BIA erred in rejecting his claim for CAT protection. Accordingly, that issue is forfeited. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1091 n.3 (holding that the petitioner forfeited issues not raised in the opening brief).
PETITION DENIED.
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.
Docket No: No. 15-71896
Decided: July 08, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)