JIANHUA YAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73514 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 24 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIANHUA YAN, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73514 Agency No. A099-966-852 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Jianhua Yan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application 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 created by 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 the inconsistencies as to who owned the house that was allegedly demolished, and when or whether it was demolished at all. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). We reject Yan’s contention that he did not have an adequate opportunity to explain, and his contention that the BIA did not consider his explanation. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Yan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, Yan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Yan does not point to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73514
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.
