FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 22 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUFENG WU, No. 15-72217
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-567-168
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yufeng Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based upon the inconsistencies between Wu’s declaration (submitted with his
asylum application) and his testimony. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271,
1274-75 (9th Cir. 2007). In affirming the IJ’s credibility finding, the BIA relied on
five inconsistencies. Most notably, Wu contends that the Chinese government
persecuted him for practicing Christianity by arresting him at a home church
meeting and detaining him at the police station. However, Wu was unable to
testify consistently with regard to whether Bibles, witness statements, or study
documents were seized during the police raid. Wu’s understanding of the term
“Bible” is relevant to his claim of persecution on account of his Christian religion.
See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that “to support an
adverse credibility determination, an inconsistency must not be trivial and must
have some bearing on the petitioner’s veracity”). Wu was confronted with this
significant inconsistency, and the IJ reasonably rejected Wu’s explanation for the
discrepancy. See Rivera, 508 F.3d at 1275. The record does not compel us to
2
reach a contrary result.1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Thus, Wu failed to
establish that he suffered past persecution.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Wu failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales,
484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“To demonstrate a well-founded
fear of future persecution, the alien must establish that her fear is both subjectively
genuine and objectively reasonable.”). First, Wu failed to satisfy the subjective
component by not testifying credibly. Id. at 1178-79. Second, even assuming that
Wu would return to China and attend an unregistered home church, there is no
objective evidence showing that there is a pattern or practice of harm against
Christians attending home churches in China or that Wu would face an
individualized risk of future persecution. See id.
In the absence of credible evidence, Wu’s claims for asylum and
withholding of removal based on his Christian religion fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
1
Although all of the adverse credibility findings are supported by substantial
evidence, we can deny the petition if a single finding is supported by substantial
evidence. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2011). We
therefore do not specifically address the four other findings.
3
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. Because
Wu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that the IJ found to be not
credible, it fails as well. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th
Cir. 2006). Further, although the country reports show that there is some religious
persecution in China, it is not sufficient evidence to compel the conclusion that it is
more likely than not that Wu would be tortured if he were returned to China. Wu
points to no other evidence that the IJ should have considered. See Farah, 348
F.3d at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4