Hui Yu v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUI YU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72582
Agency No. A087-823-198
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Hui Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
MAY 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72582
under 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, 1039-40 (9th
Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Yu’s testimony, asylum declaration, and
documentary evidence as to whether Yu left his house following his release from
detention and the frequency with which Yu was required to file a written report to
the police, as well as Yu’s demeanor during cross-examination. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances); Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that
the “need for deference is particularly strong in the context of demeanor
assessments”). Yu’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, Yu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72582
Yu’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and Yu 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 by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we reject Yu’s contention that his due process rights were violated
due to poor translation of his testimony at his hearing before the IJ. See Larita-
Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation
where there is no error).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --