Yiding Fan v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YIDING FAN, No. 21-70261
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-186-032
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Yiding Fan, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
under 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
based on an omission in Fan’s application regarding police harassment of Fan’s
parents, and an inconsistency regarding the whereabouts of Fan’s parents at the
time he signed his Form I-589 asylum application. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner’s omissions supported
adverse credibility determination where they did not constitute “a mere lack of
detail” but “went to the core of his alleged fear”). Fan’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Fan did not
present documentary evidence that would otherwise establish his eligibility for
relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s
documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support claim or
rehabilitate his testimony). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Fan’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 21-70261
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Fan’s remaining contentions
regarding the merits of his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary
to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Fan’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and Fan does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels
the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 21-70261