DONG YE-WAN, AKA Wandong Ye v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONG YE-WAN, AKA Wandong Ye,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72855
Agency No. A087-455-726
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Dong Ye-Wan, 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”) 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
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72855
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence, 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies regarding whether Ye-Wan’s wife was sterilized, the
amount of the fines Ye-Wan paid, when he learned of his wife’s pregnancy, and
his wife’s location when family planning officials visited their home on December
6, 2008. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the
totality of circumstances”). Ye-Wan’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, Ye-Wan’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not consider Ye-Wan’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of
his claims because the BIA did not decide them. See Santiago-Rodriguez v.
Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on
by the BIA).
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of Ye-Wan’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Ye-Wan does

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72855
not point to any other record evidence 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 if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
To the extent Ye-Wan contends that the IJ violated his right to due process,
we lack jurisdiction to consider it because he did not raise this claim before the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner
must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --