Guohua Shao v. Loretta E. Lynch , 633 F. App'x 448 ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
GUOHUA SHAO, No. 13-73155
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-464-042
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.
Guohua Shao, 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”). Our
*
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 is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
in light of the inconsistencies as to when Shao first learned of corruption at his
workplace and acted against it, as well as the lack of detail in Shao’s testimony
regarding his organization of the anti-corruption protest. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); Jin v.
Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir. 2014) (agency properly considered lack of
detail as one factor under the totality of circumstances). We reject Shao’s
contention that the agency did not sufficiently address his explanations for the
inconsistencies. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In
the absence of credible testimony, Shao’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims based on his anti-corruption activities fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Shao does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his claim based on China’s
2 13-73155
population control policy. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th
Cir. 1996).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Shao’s contention as to CAT relief
because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). We also lack jurisdiction to consider any request by
Shao for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644
(9th Cir. 2012).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-73155