Binghui Han v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BINGHUI HAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72996
Agency No. A088-465-571
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Binghui Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
FEB 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by 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 BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on an inconsistency between Han’s testimony and his written asylum
statement regarding the abuse by fellow inmates he allegedly experienced in
detention, and based on his implausible testimony regarding his wife’s actions.
See id. at 1043-44; Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1337-38 (9th Cir. 2013)
(substantial evidence supported adverse credibility finding based in part on
implausible testimony). Han’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject Han’s contention that
the BIA’s findings relied on speculation or conjecture. In the absence of credible
testimony, Han’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Han does not raise any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of
his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
11-72996 2

-- 2 of 3 --

1996) (holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72996 3

-- 3 of 3 --