Guanbin Yang v. Eric Holder, Jr.

588 F. App'x 649
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 17, 2014
Docket11-71991
StatusUnpublished

This text of 588 F. App'x 649 (Guanbin Yang v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Guanbin Yang v. Eric Holder, Jr., 588 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Guanbin Yang seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because, he claims, he suffered harm on account of his Christian religion. We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) finding that Petitioner was not credible. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010) (explaining standard of review for credibility findings under the REAL ID Act). The BIA identified two examples of non-trivial inconsistent testimony, including testimony regarding why Petitioner required a friend’s help to obtain a passport and whether his mother attended a home church. Petitioner was alerted to his change in testimony and had a chance to explain the inconsistencies, but failed to do so.

2. The immigration judge did not abuse his discretion by excluding documentary evidence offered by Petitioner. See Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that we review for abuse of discretion a decision to exclude a document for lack of authentication). Because the only source of authentication for the documents was Petitioner’s discredited testimony, the documents were permissibly excluded. See Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1059 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that “a person who is deemed unbelievable as to one material fact may be disbelieved in all other respects”).

In the absence of credible testimony by Petitioner, the requirements for relief have not been met.

Petition DENIED.

***

■pjjig disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vatyan v. Mukasey
508 F.3d 1179 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Shrestha v. Holder
590 F.3d 1034 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
588 F. App'x 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guanbin-yang-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.