Yongye Guo v. Merrick Garland

17-72453Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit9 mag 2023

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONGYE GUO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK GARLAND,
Respondent.
No. 17-72453
Agency No. A099-329-223
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 27, 2023 **
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, *** District Judge.
Yongye Guo (“Guo”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China
(“China”), petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application 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).
*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 9 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We DENY the petition for review.
1. We review the factual findings of the BIA for substantial evidence.
Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). Where, as here, the BIA
reviewed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for clear error, we will look to
the IJ’s decision as a guide to the BIA’s decision. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044,
1051 (9th Cir. 2008). “Under the REAL ID Act, there is no presumption that an
applicant for relief is credible, and the IJ is authorized to base an adverse credibility
determination on ‘the totality of the circumstances’ and ‘all relevant factors.’” Ling
Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). An IJ can base a credibility determination on any “relevant
factor,” including any inconsistencies, “without regard to whether” the inconsistency
“goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
“[U]nder the REAL ID Act, even minor inconsistencies . . . may constitute the
basis for an adverse credibility determination.” Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959
(9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Here, Guo testified multiple times that the key
meeting where he was arrested occurred on July 12, 2005, a Sunday evening, and he
remembered because his group usually met on Sundays. In fact, July 12, 2005, was
a Tuesday. Given the importance of this key meeting—because Guo’s claim of
persecution rests on the date of his arrest—the IJ could determine that this

-- 2 of 3 --

3
inconsistency undermined Guo’s credibility. The IJ also based her adverse
credibility determination on Guo’s changing testimony about how many cameras he
brought abroad. The IJ could determine that this inconsistency undermined his
credibility because the pictures were evidence that allegedly led the government to
detain him longer. Based on these discrepancies, the IJ could determine that Guo
was not credible, and without credible testimony, he could not prevail on his asylum
and withholding of removal claims.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s determination that Guo
failed to establish a clear probability of torture. A petitioner seeking CAT relief
must demonstrate a “particularized threat of torture,” not a threat of torture in the
abstract nor merely a showing that torture occurs in the country of removal. Lalayan
v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis removed). Where a CAT
claim relies on the same testimony deemed not credible in the asylum context, the
agency may rely on that adverse credibility determination to deny CAT protection
as well. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). Guo’s
testimony was not credible, and the country conditions evidence does not compel a
finding that Guo has established a particularized threat of torture.
Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of Guo’s CAT
claim.
The petition is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.