Gang Sun v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GANG SUN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72782
Agency No. A201-056-974
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Gang Sun, 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’s”) 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
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 15-72782
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, 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 agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Sun’s inconsistent testimony as to the documents he signed while he was
detained, an inconsistency between his testimony and documentary evidence about
his employment performance, and an omission regarding the severity of the harm
he experienced while detained. See id. at 1047 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Rodriguez-Ramirez v.
Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th Cir. 2021) (agency can afford substantial
weight to inconsistencies that bear directly on petitioner’s claim of persecution);
Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1067-69 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussion of the analysis
required to determine whether an omission can support an adverse credibility
determination). Sun’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony, in this case, Sun’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); see also Garcia
v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence

-- 2 of 4 --

3 15-72782
was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Sun’s remaining contentions
regarding the merits of his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary
to the results they reach).
We do not consider Sun’s contentions as to an imputed political opinion and
his violation of China’s exit laws because the BIA did not decide these issues, see
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited
to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Sun does not contend the BIA erred in
finding that these claims were not properly before it, see Corro-Barragan v.
Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening
brief resulted in waiver).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Sun’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and Sun does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels
the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.
We do not consider the materials Sun 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).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 15-72782
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --