YOUQIANG OU V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 17-70761 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YOUQIANG OU, AKA You Qiang Ou, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70761 Agency No. A206-543-675 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Youqiang Ou, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, 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 adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Ou’s testimony and the documentary evidence concerning his medical record, fever, and marital status. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Ou’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (IJ not compelled to accept explanations for discrepancies). Substantial evidence also supports the finding that without credible testimony, Ou failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, Ou’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (failure to satisfy lower asylum standard results in failure to satisfy withholding standard). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Ou’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Ou does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than 2 17-70761 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. In light of this disposition, we do not reach Ou’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). We do not consider the materials Ou references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-70761
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.
