DENG v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-08No. No. 15-71896

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the removal order is affirmed.

Wanhe Deng, a Chinese citizen, petitioned for review of a removal order after the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The court upheld the agency's adverse credibility determination, finding substantial evidence of inconsistencies between Deng's testimony and his prior actions. Specifically, Deng testified he had no plans to leave China before his October 2010 arrest, yet he had applied to a U.S. university and sought a student visa months earlier. His accounts regarding his attendance at house church services and when he learned such gatherings were prohibited also conflicted.

The court noted that although the immigration judge considered Deng's explanations for these inconsistencies, the agency was not obligated to believe them. Additionally, Deng failed to submit corroborating evidence for his claims and made no showing that such evidence was unavailable. The court rejected his argument that he should not be required to produce documents supporting his assertions. Finally, because Deng did not raise an argument before the court regarding the CAT protection claim, that issue was forfeited.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Credibility findings supported by substantial evidence
Failure to provide corroborating evidence
Inconsistencies between testimony and documented actions
Forfeiture of unraised arguments on appeal

Procedural posture

Deng sought judicial review of the BIA's final denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Wanhe Deng is a native and citizen of China. He seeks review of a final order of removal after the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agencys adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing standard). For example, Petitioner testified that he had no plans to leave China before his arrest in October 2010. But he applied to the American Language Institute at San Francisco State University in June 2010, and sought a student visa in July 2010. In addition, Petitioners accounts of how often he attended a house church, and about when he learned that such gatherings were illegal, were inconsistent. The agency was required to consider Petitioners explanations, see Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (holding that a “petitioners explanation for the inconsistency, if any, should be considered in weighing credibility” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and it did. It was not required to credit those explanations. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011).

2. The immigration judge fairly noted that Petitioner failed to provide corroborating evidence of his claims. At the very least, Petitioner presents no evidence that leaves us “compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). Petitioners argument that he “should not have to ‘create’ documents to support his claim” is insufficient.

3. Petitioner does not argue before us that the BIA erred in rejecting his claim for CAT protection. Accordingly, that issue is forfeited. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1091 n.3 (holding that the petitioner forfeited issues not raised in the opening brief).

PETITION DENIED.