MAO YANG V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 14-73835 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 20 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAO YANG, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73835 Agency No. A087-713-199 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 20, 2020** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Mao Yang, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction 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, 103940 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Yang’s testimony regarding what occurred at the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles and whether he was informed his name is in a Chinese computer database system. Id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances); Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because we must uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence, we focus on one of the key contradictions the IJ identified . . . .” (citation omitted)). Yang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, Yang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Yang’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Yang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more 2 14-73835 likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. We do not consider the additional evidence submitted with Yang’s opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record underlying the BIA’s decision). PETITION DENIED. 3 14-73835
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.
