NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 5 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAIJUN HU, No. 20-72228 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-939-871 v. MEMORANDUM * 0F MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 17, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON, *** Senior 1F District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. Petitioner Haijun Hu, a native of China, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition in part and dismiss in part. Petitioner illegally entered the United States on or about February 17, 2017. Petitioner filed an affirmative asylum application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“Service”). The Service then referred the application to the Los Angeles Immigration Court and issued a Notice to Appear. Petitioner contends he was arrested and persecuted in China for attending “house church” and for practicing Christianity. He states he was detained for 15 days, interrogated, and severely beaten. If returned to China, he contends he will be persecuted by Chinese government officials. The IJ denied Petitioner’s request for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ found Petitioner not credible. The IJ determined that the information on Petitioner’s visa application was false, including his identity. The IJ also determined that Petitioner likewise submitted false documents, including his baptismal certificate, which was facially altered. Petitioner also testified as to inconsistences regarding attending church. The IJ gave credence to the torture occurring in China but determined that Petitioner failed to establish that it was “more 2 20-72228 likely than not” that he would be subject to torture by the Chinese government if he returned to China. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. The BIA determined that the IJ was not clearly erroneous as to her credibility findings and stated that in an absence of past persecution, Petitioner failed to show he would be persecuted if he returned to China. Petitioner filed for a stay of removal, which this court granted. Petitioner challenges the denial of his withholding and CAT claims in his opening brief. The Government correctly argues, however, that Petitioner did not raise these issues on appeal to the BIA. The BIA previously determined that Petitioner waived his challenge to the withholding of removal and CAT protection findings. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals