Yuting He; Xiaoling Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUTING HE; XIAOLING CHEN,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-692
Agency Nos.
A208-737-325
A208-737-326
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Yuting He and Xiaoling Chen, natives and citizens of China, petition pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum
and denying He’s application for withholding of removal. 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 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-692
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 within He’s testimony regarding a sterilization notice, an
omission in He’s statement and 2017 interviews with immigration officials
regarding going into hiding, misrepresentations in He’s visa application, and the
lack of corroborating evidence. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d
969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner’s omissions supported adverse credibility
determination where they did not constitute “a mere lack of detail” but “went to the
core of his alleged fear”). Petitioners’ 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 petitioners did
not present documentary evidence that would otherwise establish their eligibility
for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s
documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, in
the absence of credible testimony, in this case, petitioners’ asylum claim and He’s
withholding of removal claim fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-692
(9th Cir. 2003).
We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to whether they established an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution and whether they merit asylum in
the exercise of discretion because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds.
See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In
reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by
that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --