Wen He v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEN HAO HE, No. 20-70454
Petitioner, Agency No. A209-850-460
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Wen Hao He, 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 and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
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 misrepresentations He made to immigration officials. See id. at 1048(adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
circumstances”); see also Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011)
(absent establishing that an exception applies, “[a]n asylum applicant who lies to
immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story”).
He’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this
case, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not reach He’s contentions regarding corroboration, 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), or his remaining contentions
regarding the merits of his asylum or withholding of removal claims, see
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is
limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
We do not consider the materials He references in his opening brief that are
2 20-70454
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-70454