HONGWEI YANG V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-71303 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HONGWEI YANG, No. 12-71303 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-113-167 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 22, 2015** Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Hongwei Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on Yang’s different accounts of what officials informed him about his father’s suicide and based on inconsistencies regarding his addresses. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Yang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject Yang’s contention that his documentary evidence overcomes the agency’s negative credibility finding. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (documents not sufficient to rehabilitate testimony). Thus, 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). Finally, Yang’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 2 12-71303 with the acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 12-71303
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.
