Mengya Huang v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 1 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MENGYA HUANG,                                      No.      14-70830
    Petitioner,                      Agency No. A200-267-034
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted July 26, 2016**
    Before:        SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Mengya Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
    removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
    *
    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).
    have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
    agency’s factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act, Ren
    v. Holder, 
    648 F.3d 1079
    , 1083, 1089-91 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition
    for review.
    We do not consider the materials Huang references in and attaches to her
    opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 
    79 F.3d 955
    , 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Huang did not
    sufficiently corroborate her claim. See Aden v. Holder, 
    589 F.3d 1040
    , 1046 (9th
    Cir. 2009) (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s corroborative
    evidence satisfied his burden of proof). Further, the BIA reasonably rejected her
    explanations as to why she could not obtain corroborating evidence. See 
    Ren, 648 F.3d at 1092
    n.12. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Huang’s claims for
    asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. See 
    Aden, 589 F.3d at 1046-47
    .
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                 14-70830
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-70830

Judges: Schroeder, Canby, Callahan

Filed Date: 8/1/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024