Ming Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70011
Agency No. A201-039-852
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ming Chen, 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 applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70011
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence, 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 adverse credibility determination based on
Chen’s submission of fraudulent documents in his student visa application, an
inconsistency and lack of corroboration regarding his medical treatment, and
failure to corroborate the cause of his medical conditions. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see
also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (false information on visa
application supported adverse credibility determination); Mukulumbutu v. Barr,
977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
decision that [petitioner] did not rehabilitate his testimony with sufficient
corroborating evidence.”). Chen’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, Chen’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).
We do not address Chen’s contentions as to the merits of his asylum and
withholding claims because the BIA did not deny relief on those grounds. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70011
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)).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of Chen’s CAT claim because it
was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Chen does not point to
any 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.
We do not consider the materials Chen 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 --