NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAOWEI HE, No. 14-71814
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-731-196
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Shaowei He, 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
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on He’s knowing submission of a fabricated household registration
document to the immigration court, and his submission of a counterfeit marriage
certificate. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse
credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); Singh
v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011) (“lies and fraudulent documents
when they are no longer necessary for the immediate escape from persecution do
support an adverse inference”). Thus, He’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Jiang, 754 F.3d at 740.
He’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and He does not otherwise point to any evidence that
compels the finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned. See id. at 740-41.
Finally, we do not consider materials referenced in He’s opening brief that
were not part of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963
2 14-71814
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative
record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71814