Huawen Huang v. Loretta E. Lynch , 642 F. App'x 775 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUAWEN HUANG, No. 13-73688
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-208-122
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Huawen Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
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
in light of the inconsistencies as to Huang’s marriage, his reasons for not
submitting a household registration that named his wife and son, purported visits
from family planning officers, and his wife’s alleged forced abortion and IUD
insertion. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Huang’s explanations for the
inconsistencies do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In light of this conclusion, we need not reach Huang’s
contention regarding corroborative evidence. In the absence of credible
testimony, Huang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on November 20, 2015 has expired.
Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73688