The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-71861•Genlong Meng v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
15-71861Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 24, 2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GENLONG MENG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71861
Agency No. A087-870-175
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 23, 2023 **
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Genlong Meng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming
the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention under Torture (“CAT”). We review for
* 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
FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 3 --
2
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.
3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination of Meng’s
ineligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. While the BIA agreed with the
IJ’s denial of both claims for relief based on Meng’s adverse credibility, it also
affirmed the IJ’s alternative finding that, even assuming Meng’s credibility, he has
not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in
China. On appeal, Meng does not challenge this alternative ruling. Because Meng
cannot qualify as a “refugee” without a showing of past or future persecution, see 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), Meng’s failure to appeal is fatal to his claims for asylum and
withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A). Accordingly,
the record does not compel reversing the denial of asylum and withholding.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. The
BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Meng was inconsistent about how long and how
badly he was abused by police, who introduced him to his church in the United
States, why he did not use his passport when first issued, and the conditions of his
release from detention. Meng argues on appeal that his testimony should have
deemed credible and that it would establish his CAT claim.
The record supports the BIA’s credibility determination. Meng contends that
-- 2 of 3 --
3
the IJ erred by viewing inconsistencies between Meng’s declaration and testimonial
evidence about the conditions of his release from detention as damaging to Meng’s
credibility. Meng contends any discrepancy in his declaration was due to
“mistakenly rel[ying]” on his non-attorney advisor in drafting the declaration. But
the IJ and the BIA are not required to credit these explanations. Zamanov v. Holder,
649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition, the IJ and BIA also relied on four
other discrepancies to support the adverse credibility finding. Given that Meng does
not appeal any of those findings, substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility determination.
The determination that Meng failed to proffer corroborative evidence was also
supported by substantial evidence. We uphold the BIA’s determination unless the
record “compels a contrary result.” Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th
Cir.2006). When a petitioner offers testimony alongside country condition reports,
and the petitioner’s testimony is found not credible, “to reverse the BIA’s decision
we would have to find that the reports alone compelled the conclusion that [Meng]
is more likely than not to be tortured.” Id. at 922–23. And although Meng’s reports
“confirm that torture takes place in [China], they do not compel the conclusion that
[Meng] would be tortured if returned.” Id. at 923.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
DENIED.
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.