Jing Hui v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 6, 2023
• Docket: 22-1434
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 6 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HE JING HUI, No. 22-1434 Agency No. Petitioner, A209-157-212 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 4, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO, District Judge.***

He Jinghui (“He”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a

decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration

* 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). *** The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination. The agency pointed to “specific instances in the record” to find that

He’s testimony lacked credibility. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir.

2010). He’s testimony contained numerous discrepancies, including a falsified 2015

visa application, undisclosed siblings in the United States seeking asylum, his failure

to provide a residential address in Hawaii, and unfamiliarity with his sponsor. See

Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050—51 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding

that a petitioner with a “propensity for dishonesty” can support an adverse credibility

determination); see also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding

that credibility issues “no longer need to go to the heart of a petitioner’s claim”).

2. The IJ properly concluded that the corroborating evidence He submitted, a

letter from his mother and his medical records from China, failed to rehabilitate his

testimony due to omissions and inconsistencies. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d

1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the IJ may evaluate both the evidence

submitted and the totality of the circumstances to make an adverse credibility

determination).

3. The agency did not err in determining He failed to establish a well-founded

fear of prosecution. There was no evidence of an objective fear of religious

2 persecution because it was unclear whether He practiced Christianity. He could

neither describe where his church in Hawaii was located nor sufficiently identify the

pastor who submitted a letter on his behalf. He also failed to offer evidence that the

police would target him upon his return to China. See Mendez-Gutierrez v.

Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring an applicant to show

“credible, direct, and specific evidence” in support of his reasonable fear of

persecution).

PETITION DENIED.