Jianhua Yao v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANHUA YAO, No. 13-74363
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-575-472
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jianhua Yao, 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 the
*
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).
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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omissions from Yao’s asylum application that he was handcuffed and
beaten unconscious, and that his wife was taken away for a sterilization surgery.
See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility
determination was supported by omission in asylum application of facts that were
crucial to establishing petitioners were persecuted); see also Shrestha at
1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
circumstances”). Yao’s explanation for the omissions does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, in
the absence of credible testimony, Yao’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-74363