MENGYA HUANG V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-70830 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 1 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MENGYA HUANG, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-70830 Agency No. A200-267-034 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Mengya Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We * 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). have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act, Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083, 1089-91 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review. We do not consider the materials Huang references in and attaches to her opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Huang did not sufficiently corroborate her claim. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s corroborative evidence satisfied his burden of proof). Further, the BIA reasonably rejected her explanations as to why she could not obtain corroborating evidence. See Ren, 648 F.3d at 1092 n.12. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Huang’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. See Aden, 589 F.3d at 1046-47. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-70830

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.