Dongwang Yu v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONGWANG YU,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71176
Agency No. A089-994-981
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA and LEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge.
Dongwang Yu, a citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision upholding an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial
* 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).
*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 3 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
of Yu’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a),
and we deny the petition.
We review credibility determinations and denials of asylum, withholding, and
CAT relief for substantial evidence, and we uphold an adverse credibility
determination unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
to the contrary.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017).
1. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination against Yu.
In his testimony before the IJ, Yu gave plainly inconsistent answers about the
frequency of his church attendance. Yu’s credibility was further undermined by his
inability to name the current pastor at his church, an implausible response given his
claimed frequency of attendance. Nor could Yu remember when he first began
attending church.
As to Yu’s interactions with his middle school friend, Yu contradicted himself
by claiming that he rarely saw his friend and then that he had not seen his friend at
all since middle school.
Yu also gave evasive testimony as to why he could not obtain corroborating
evidence. When asked to provide news reports or human rights reports about residential
surveillance in China, Yu gave the non-response that local authorities would not issue
any documents about residential surveillance. When asked to provide documentation

-- 2 of 4 --

3
about his and his friend’s attendance at a particular middle school, Yu claimed he
could not provide such evidence because the school was being remodeled. But then
Yu could provide no proof that the school was being remodeled, merely saying that his
wife told him it was now a “brand new school.” Finally, Yu gave evasive and
inconsistent testimony about why he could not corroborate his attendance at church.
“The adverse credibility determination by the IJ relied on factors explicitly
permitted by the REAL ID Act including unresponsive and undetailed testimony, and
inconsistent testimony for which there was no explanation or corroboration.” Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010).
2. Yu failed to corroborate his testimony.
In Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011), we held that “the IJ
must give the applicant notice of the corroboration that is required and an
opportunity either to produce the requisite corroborative evidence or to explain why
that evidence is not reasonably available.”
The record demonstrates that the IJ continued the case on multiple occasions
to allow Yu to obtain corroborating evidence, clarifying the specific evidence that
Yu needed to obtain. For instance, when Yu submitted evidence on surveillance
generally, the IJ clarified that he wanted evidence of residential surveillance, and
again allowed Yu time to find such evidence. Given the IJ’s instructions on the type
of corroborating evidence requested, the continuances to allow Yu to gather such

-- 3 of 4 --

4
evidence, and Yu’s failure to show that he was unable to gather the evidence, there
was no error.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --