Yiding Fan v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2023
• Docket: 21-70261
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YIDING FAN, No. 21-70261

Petitioner, Agency No. A205-186-032

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Yiding Fan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

* 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). 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 an omission in Fan’s application regarding police harassment of Fan’s

parents, and an inconsistency regarding the whereabouts of Fan’s parents at the

time he signed his Form I-589 asylum application. See id. at 1048 (adverse

credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); Zamanov v.

Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner’s omissions supported

adverse credibility determination where they did not constitute “a mere lack of

detail” but “went to the core of his alleged fear”). Fan’s explanations do not

compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.

2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Fan did not

present documentary evidence that would otherwise establish his eligibility for

relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s

documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support claim or

rehabilitate his testimony). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Fan’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

2 21-70261 In light of this disposition, we need not reach Fan’s remaining contentions

regarding the merits of his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538

(9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary

to the results they reach).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Fan’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not

credible, and Fan 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 in China. See

Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 21-70261