He Jing Hui v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HE JING HUI,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1434
Agency No.
A209-157-212
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 4, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO,
District Judge.***
He Jinghui (“He”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a
decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration
* 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 Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge
for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 6 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. The agency pointed to “specific instances in the record” to find that
He’s testimony lacked credibility. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir.
2010). He’s testimony contained numerous discrepancies, including a falsified 2015
visa application, undisclosed siblings in the United States seeking asylum, his failure
to provide a residential address in Hawaii, and unfamiliarity with his sponsor. See
Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050—51 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding
that a petitioner with a “propensity for dishonesty” can support an adverse credibility
determination); see also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding
that credibility issues “no longer need to go to the heart of a petitioner’s claim”).
2. The IJ properly concluded that the corroborating evidence He submitted, a
letter from his mother and his medical records from China, failed to rehabilitate his
testimony due to omissions and inconsistencies. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d
1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the IJ may evaluate both the evidence
submitted and the totality of the circumstances to make an adverse credibility
determination).
3. The agency did not err in determining He failed to establish a well-founded
fear of prosecution. There was no evidence of an objective fear of religious

-- 2 of 3 --

3
persecution because it was unclear whether He practiced Christianity. He could
neither describe where his church in Hawaii was located nor sufficiently identify the
pastor who submitted a letter on his behalf. He also failed to offer evidence that the
police would target him upon his return to China. See Mendez-Gutierrez v.
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring an applicant to show
“credible, direct, and specific evidence” in support of his reasonable fear of
persecution).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --