Fangyun He v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FANGYUN HE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71765
Agency No. A200-250-004
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2023 **
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Fangyun He, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial
of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 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
FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(“CAT”).1 We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F. 3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. The BIA denied He asylum based on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.
Substantial evidence supports that determination. For example, after claiming to be
arrested and beaten for attending an unsanctioned church, He did not leave China
for several months despite having a valid student visa. He also claimed to have
studied pharmaceutical engineering for four years, but she could not describe the
field except to say that it is “to produce drugs.” Even though she stated she had been
a practicing Christian for years and claims persecution based on her religion, she
failed to answer basic questions about Christianity. While He offers some
explanations for her inconsistencies, the IJ and BIA were entitled to not credit her
explanations. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, the
IJ and BIA found that He’s documentary evidence did little to rehabilitate her
testimony or corroborate her claims.
2. Because He’s credibility determination supports the denial of asylum, it
1 Before the immigration judge (“IJ”), the IJ only addressed He’s asylum
application based on counsel’s apparent representation that He was waiving her
withholding of removal and CAT claims. He challenged that waiver finding before
the BIA. The BIA affirmed the waiver finding but alternatively concluded that the
IJ’s adverse credibility finding also supported the denial of withholding of removal
and CAT relief.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
follows that that the denial of withholding of removal is also supported. See Alvarez-
Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).2
3. The adverse credibility findings also support the denial of CAT. “An
adverse credibility determination does not, by itself, necessarily defeat a CAT claim,
because CAT claims are analytically separate from claims for withholding of
removal. Rather, in determining whether a petitioner will more likely than not be
tortured if returned to his or her home country, all evidence relevant to the possibility
of future torture shall be considered. . . . Unless clear indications exist that the IJ or
BIA did not consider the documentary evidence, general language that the agency
considered all the evidence before it is sufficient.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2014) (simplified). And here, nothing demonstrates that the BIA
neglected to consider all of the evidence before it.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
DENIED.
2 Because the adverse credibility finding supports the denial of asylum and
withholding of removal, we do not address He’s alternative arguments regarding
persecution.

-- 3 of 3 --