Hao Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAO CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General
Respondent.
No. 21-1393
Agency No.
A206-850-222
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: BYBEE and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO,*** District
Judge.
FILED
JUN 21 2023
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).
*** The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, Senior United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Hao Chen, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial
evidence, including adverse credibility determinations. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA’s decision upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is
supported by substantial evidence. The agency based its decision on specific
factors enumerated in the REAL ID Act, such as the consistency of Chen’s own
statements and those of Pastor Guo, as well as Chen’s demeanor, candor, and
responsiveness. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (asylum); 1231(b)(3)(C)
(withholding of removal); 1229a(c)(4)(C) (CAT).
The inconsistencies in Chen and Pastor Guo’s testimony were not “utterly
trivial.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043. For example, Chen’s inconsistent statements
about why he came to the United States, and the years he attended church in San
Diego, are probative of Chen’s claim of persecution on account of his religion.
Moreover, when given the opportunity to explain their inconsistent statements,
both Chen and Pastor Guo were unable to do so persuasively. The sum of the
2

-- 2 of 4 --

witnesses’ inconsistencies shows a pattern of untruthfulness and evasiveness on
which the agency reasonably based its conclusion. The record does not compel the
contrary. Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
Absent credible testimony, Chen’s asylum claims fail because the remainder
of Chen’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate either past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution. Because Chen does not meet the burden of
proof for his asylum claim, his withholding of removal claim also fails. See
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the
more stringent standard for withholding of removal.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Chen’s CAT claim.
Although an adverse credibility determination does not necessarily defeat a claim
for CAT relief, Chen’s country conditions evidence does not compel the
conclusion that he is more likely than not to be tortured if removed to China. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49. While we acknowledge the human rights
violations that some Christians face in China, “[t]he circumstances of [Christians]
in general . . . do not vitiate the agency’s specific findings as to [Chen’s] situation.”
Dawson v. Garland, 998 F.3d 876, 885 (9th Cir. 2021); see also In re S-V-, 22 I. &
N. Dec. 1306, 1313 (BIA 2000), overruled on other grounds by Zheng v. Ashcroft,
3

-- 3 of 4 --

332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he existence of . . . mass violations of human
rights in a particular country does not, as such, constitute a sufficient ground for
determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to
torture.”).
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --