Guowei Han v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUOWEI HAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73192
Agency No. A205-192-674
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Guowei Han, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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).
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73192
jurisdiction 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 regarding Han’s alleged injuries and an inconsistency
regarding his employment in China. See id. at 1047 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Han’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Han’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003) (failure to satisfy lower asylum standard results in failure to satisfy
withholding standard); see also Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.
2014) (applicant’s documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support
claim).
We do not address Han’s contentions as to the merits of his claims because
the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder,
657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we
consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73192
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Han’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and Han does not point to any other record evidence that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Farah, 348
F.3d at 1157.
We do not consider the materials Han references in his opening brief that are
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 the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --