Shu Han Sun v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHU HAN SUN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1914
Agency No. A201-427-012
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Shu Han Sun, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications
FILED
FEB 20 2024
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 --

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural
history of the case, we need not recount it here.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA
has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated portions of it as its own, this Court
treats the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s. Molina-Estrada v.
INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). We review factual findings, including
adverse credibility findings, for substantial evidence. Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d
998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010). We review questions of law de novo. Hernandez v.
Garland, 38 F.4th 785, 788 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny the petition for review.
I
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies regarding Sun’s religious practices and whether the police
beat Sun after her release from detention. If the agency determines a respondent is
not credible, it must provide “specific and cogent reasons” explicitly supporting its
finding. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2010). In each
instance, the agency referred to specific inconsistencies in the record, afforded Sun
opportunities to explain these inconsistencies, and provided specific and cogent
reasons for rejecting those explanations. See id., 590 F.3d at 1043. The
2

-- 2 of 4 --

inconsistency regarding Sun’s religious practices is significant because Sun’s
religion forms the basis of her claim for persecution. See id. at 1044, 1047 (noting
that “when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great
weight”). The inconsistency regarding whether Sun was harmed by the police after
her detention is also significant because it bears on whether Sun experienced harm
that rose to the level of persecution.
Sun advances several other arguments regarding the agency’s adverse
credibility finding, none of which are availing. First, Sun’s Customs and Border
Protection (“CBP”) interview contained sufficient indicia of reliability because it
was conducted under oath, with the assistance of two Mandarin interpreters, the
CBP officer asked follow up questions, and the CBP officer’s notes indicated that
Sun did not appear to be unusually nervous or fearful. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr,
977 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020). Next, the agency’s finding that Sun’s testimony
regarding where Sun lived is inconsistent with Sun’s mother’s declaration is
supported by the record. Sun also challenges the IJ’s findings on her other
corroborating evidence and the implausibility of her travels throughout China, but
the BIA did not adopt or rely on these findings. Thus, the IJ’s findings on these
matters are outside the scope of this Court’s review. See Villegas Sanchez v.
Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2021).
3

-- 3 of 4 --

Absent credible testimony, Sun fails to meet her burden to demonstrate that
she experienced past persecution or that she had a well-founded fear of future
persecution in China. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, we deny Sun’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
II
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Sun failed to
demonstrate eligibility for CAT protection. “Absent credible testimony, [Sun’s]
CAT claim rests on country conditions reports and other corroborating evidence in
the record.” See Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 927. Sun’s testimony was found not
credible. Although Sun provides country condition documents indicating that there
is harm and persecution of Christians in China, the reports are insufficient to
establish that Sun herself faces a particularized risk of torture if she returns to
China. See id. at 928; Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --