Liang Guo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIANG GUO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73601
Agency No. A089-897-752
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.
Liang Guo, 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 decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection 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
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-73601
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 inconsistencies regarding Guo’s passport, work history, and addresses.
See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances). Guo’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that the remaining evidence in the record is
insufficient to establish eligibility for relief. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d
1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th
Cir. 2020) (opportunity to provide corroboration not required when testimony not
credible). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Guo’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Guo’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and Guo does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-73601
the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See id.
at 1157.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --