Ling Hao v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LING HAO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73301
Agency No. A099-402-839
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ling Hao, 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 26 2016
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 --

under 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies both within Hao’s testimony, and between his testimony,
application, and other record evidence, regarding his period of employment in
China. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
“totality of circumstances”). Hao’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject
Hao’s contention that the BIA failed to address his argument on appeal.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Hao is
Christian and practiced Christianity in the United States, he failed to establish a
well-founded fear of persecution in China. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). We do not
consider extra-record evidence Hao references in his opening brief. See Fisher v.
INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to
the administrative record). We reject Hao’s contentions that the BIA failed to
consider record evidence. Thus, Hao’s asylum claim fails.
13-73301 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Because Hao failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Huang v.
Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
Finally, Hao’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the
agency found not credible, and Hao does not point to any record evidence that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73301 3

-- 3 of 3 --