Desheng Ye v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DESHENG YE,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70154
Agency No. A205-169-795
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2019**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Desheng Ye, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
* 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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70154
applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the
REAL ID Act (“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 a material inconsistency between Ye’s testimony and his written
declaration as to how many times he protested in person the government’s demand
that his family sell their produce to the government below market rate, the second
allegedly leading directly to his arrest and mistreatment. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming negative credibility finding even though
some of the factors were factually unsupported or irrelevant). Given Ye’s in-court
testimony, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the inconsistent
information in the detailed asylum statement he submitted with his Application for
Asylum and Withholding of Removal was designed to gild the lily in his favor.
Ye’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). The Board found his attempted explanation
of this admitted discrepancy to be “unconvincing in the context of a claim
occurring over such a short period of time and relating to so few incidents.”

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70154
Accordingly, without credible testimony to support his application, he did not carry
his burden of proof. Thus, the Board did not err in denying his application.
Ye’s CAT claim also fails because it rests on the same testimony that the
agency found not credible and he points to no other evidence showing it is more
likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --