Qing Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1885
Agency No.
A209-185-195
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Qing 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 and withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
* 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
MAR 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1885
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 Chen’s falsification of information on his United States visa application
and his voluntary return to China after his arrest and before traveling to the United
States. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of
the circumstances); see also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“[L]ies and fraudulent documents when they are no longer necessary for the
immediate escape from persecution do support an adverse inference.”); Loho v.
Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2008) (voluntary returns to home
country supported adverse credibility determination). Chen’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000).
We do not address Chen’s contentions as to other credibility factors not
referenced by the BIA because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing
the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony, in this case, Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal claims based on

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1885
his alleged past harm in China fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Chen does not contest the BIA’s determination that he waived
challenge to the IJ’s finding that he did not establish a claim of future persecution
based on his church attendance in the United States, we do not address it. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --