Wanhe Deng v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WANHE DENG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71896
Agency No. A205-332-825
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 6, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and LEE, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,*** District Judge.
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
FILED
JUL 8 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the
District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

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 agency’s 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, Petitioner’s 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 Petitioner’s explanations, see
Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (holding that
a "petitioner’s 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
2

-- 2 of 3 --

unavailable." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). Petitioner’s 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.
3

-- 3 of 3 --