YOUQIANG OU, AKA You Qiang Ou v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOUQIANG OU, AKA You Qiang Ou,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70761
Agency No. A206-543-675
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Youqiang Ou, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70761
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence, 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 adverse credibility determination based on
inconsistencies between Ou’s testimony and the documentary evidence concerning
his medical record, fever, and marital status. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Ou’s explanations
do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th
Cir. 2021) (IJ not compelled to accept explanations for discrepancies). Substantial
evidence also supports the finding that without credible testimony, Ou failed to
establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Garcia v. Holder,
749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s documentary evidence was
insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, Ou’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)
(failure to satisfy lower asylum standard results in failure to satisfy withholding
standard).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Ou’s CAT claim because
it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Ou does not point to any
other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70761
not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government
if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Ou’s remaining contentions
regarding the merits of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to
decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
We do not consider the materials Ou references in his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --