Yaowei Hou v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAOWEI HOU,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER,
Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71203
Agency No. A089-970-909
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Yaowei Hou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China (“PRC”), petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding
FILED
JAN 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 4 --

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the
petition.
Hou contends the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
Credibility assessments are made “based on the ‘totality of the circumstances’ and
‘all relevant factors.’” Bingxu Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2014)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). “[O]nly the most extraordinary
circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” Id.
(quoting Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010)).
The IJ determined Hou’s testimony appeared “rehearsed or rote, rather than
a recollection of actual experiences in the PRC.” The IJ noted Hou’s allegations of
extreme mistreatment over a one-week period conflicted with his later testimony
that his wounds were not serious enough to warrant medical treatment. The IJ
found Hou’s testimony that he was subject to police supervision inconsistent with
the facts that Chinese authorities excused him from a mandatory reporting meeting,
allowed him to travel to Beijing to attend a visa interview, and granted him
permission to leave the country. Hou’s attendance at a Spanish congregation
despite not speaking the language, his failure to tell his pastor about his religious
persecution, and his decision to be baptized only after his case was referred to
2

-- 2 of 4 --

immigration court led the IJ to determine Hou’s religious activity in the United
States was done “primarily to support his pending asylum request.” We therefore
conclude there was substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility
determination. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263-64 (9th Cir. 2017).
With Hou’s testimony properly rejected, the only other evidence relevant to
Hou’s fear of persecution was general background information concerning
conditions in the PRC. Although individuals deemed “politically sensitive” may
face difficulties there, the IJ noted that Hou failed to connect that information to
his situation, since it appeared he was able to travel within and leave the PRC
without great difficulty. We thus also conclude substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s conclusion that Hou failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum. See
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding BIA’s decision
based on a lack of evidence). Because Hou failed to meet the burden of proof for
his asylum claim, he is unable to satisfy the higher “clear probability” of
persecution standard to be eligible for mandatory withholding of removal.
Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000).
For the same reasons, we conclude substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Hou failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that he would
3

-- 3 of 4 --

be tortured upon returning to the PRC and was therefore ineligible for CAT
protection.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --