Guanbin Yang v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUANBIN YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71991
Agency No. A099-046-463
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: GILMAN, *** GRABER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Guanbin Yang seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief because, he claims, he suffered harm on account of his Christian religion.
We deny the petition.
FILED
DEC 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, Senior Circuit Judge for the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

1. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’
("BIA") finding that Petitioner was not credible. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining standard of review for credibility
findings under the REAL ID Act). The BIA identified two examples of non-trivial
inconsistent testimony, including testimony regarding why Petitioner required a
friend’s help to obtain a passport and whether his mother attended a home church.
Petitioner was alerted to his change in testimony and had a chance to explain the
inconsistencies, but failed to do so.
2. The immigration judge did not abuse his discretion by excluding
documentary evidence offered by Petitioner. See Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d
1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that we review for abuse of discretion a
decision to exclude a document for lack of authentication). Because the only
source of authentication for the documents was Petitioner’s discredited testimony,
the documents were permissibly excluded. See Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405
F.3d 1049, 1059 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that "a person who is deemed unbelievable
as to one material fact may be disbelieved in all other respects").
In the absence of credible testimony by Petitioner, the requirements for relief
have not been met.
Petition DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --