Xianhui Ye v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIANHUI YE, No. 19-70788
Petitioner, Agency No. A216-275-828
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 5, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN, HURWITZ, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Xianhui Ye, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the order of an
immigration judge (“IJ”) denying an application for asylum and withholding of
*
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).
removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. The adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating
standard of review). Ye submitted a certification to the IJ from a Catholic church,
stating that he attended church activities. But, at his hearing, Ye could not recall any
information in the certification, including the name of the church, the date of
services, or the person in charge. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam) (“[I]nconsistencies between testimonial and documentary
evidence [are] a proper basis for an adverse credibility finding.”).
2. An applicant seeking asylum or withholding of removal must show past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)
(asylum); id. § 1208.16(b) (withholding of removal). Absent his discredited
testimony, Ye did not meet this burden. The documentary evidence establishes only
that he was arrested and interrogated by Chinese police, which alone does not
compel a finding of past persecution. See Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th
Cir. 2001), amended on other grounds, 355 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2004). Nor does any
non-testimonial evidence compel a finding that Ye reasonably feared future
persecution.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1
Ye also applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”), but his petition for review does not challenge the denial of CAT protection.
2