Hongtai Yang v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONGTAI YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70614
Agency No. A088-129-109
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Hongtai Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection 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).
FILED
MAY 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-70614
We have 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.
Although the government contends that we lack jurisdiction to consider
Yang’s arguments concerning the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because he failed to develop those arguments in his brief to the BIA, “[i]t is well-
established that we may review any issue addressed on the merits by the BIA,
regardless of whether the petitioner raised it before the agency.” Parada v.
Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 914 (9th Cir. 2018).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination, including Yang’s
prior voluntary return from the United States to China without having applied for
asylum and his inconsistent testimony concerning his obligation to report to the
police in China after his purported arrest and hospitalization in 2007. See Loho v.
Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Loho’s two voluntary returns
to her home country support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding . . . .”); Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he record does not compel the
finding that the IJ’s unwillingness to believe this explanation . . . was erroneous.”).
In the absence of credible testimony, Yang’s claims for asylum and withholding of
removal fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-70614
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Yang’s claim for
CAT protection because it was based on the same evidence that the agency found
not credible, and Yang does not point to other evidence in the record 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 Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --