NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NING HE, No. 18-72826 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-540-281 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 15, 2019** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Ning He, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 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 an inconsistency between He’s testimony and the divorce decree as to the custody status of her son, as well as an inconsistency between He’s testimony and her visa application concerning her employment history. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that He’s corroborative evidence did not rehabilitate her testimony. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). He’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). He’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and He does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be 2 18-72826 tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-72826 18-72826 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Ning He v. William Barr 22 October 2019 Agency Unpublished 2de954cce8bbff06b0db2bb35d3c7cb23bab808c
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals