KUIPING GOU, AKA Baojun Hou v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KUIPING GOU, AKA Baojun Hou,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71241
Agency No. A099-058-481
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kuiping Gou’s opposed motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied.
Gou, 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal,
* 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 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 12-71241
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We reject Gou’s contention that he sufficiently challenged the IJ’s denial of
his asylum application as untimely on appeal to the BIA. Thus, we lack
jurisdiction to consider his contentions regarding the timeliness of his asylum
application raised for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the agency’s findings as to Gou’s identity, and his varying assertions as to
his level of involvement in forced birth control procedures in China. See Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of
circumstances); Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding
adverse credibility determination based in part on a failure to establish identity
credibly). In the absence of credible statements, in this case, Gou’s withholding of
removal claim fails. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 12-71241
Finally, Gou’s CAT claim also fails because it was based on the same
statements found not credible, and Gou does not point to any evidence that
compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government of China. See id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --