Jian Guo v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIAN FENG GUO, No. 13-72858
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-324-983
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jian Feng Guo, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
process violations, Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010),
and review for substantial evidence the 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). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Guo’s inadequate explanations for his acquisition of a passport in 2006;
his repeated mis-statements and significant differences in his testimony as to basic
facts, including his daughter’s date of birth and various employment dates; and an
inconsistency as to whether he was arrested in the morning or the evening. See id.
at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances). Guo’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, Guo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
We reject Guo’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights by
considering the asylum officer’s interview notes. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246
(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Guo’s contentions concerning his
2 13-72858
CAT claim because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-72858