Yongdong Shi v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONGDONG SHI,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-866
Agency No.
A215-546-406
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Yongdong Shi, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* 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
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-866
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations under 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 agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on Shi’s demeanor, inconsistencies between his testimony
and asylum application as to who was arrested and the date of his arrest, and
inconsistencies between his testimony and record evidence as to the extent of
his injuries, the length of his detention, and when he became a Christian. See
id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances); see also Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263-64 (9th Cir.
2017) (demeanor finding supported where IJ provided “specific, first-hand
observations,” and an inconsistency between applicant’s testimony and
documentary evidence undermined credibility). Shi’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Shi’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Shi does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT protection,
we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-866
(9th Cir. 2013).
The temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --