NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BING QUING NI, AKA Bingqing Li, AKA No. 20-70001
Bingqing Ni,
Agency No. A209-418-532
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 26, 2020**
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Bing Quing Ni, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
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.
We do not consider the materials Ni references in his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on false statements Ni made on his 2015 tourist visa application and an
inconsistency between Ni’s testimony and his credible fear interview regarding
how many times he reported to the police after he was released from detention.
See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under
“the totality of circumstances”). Ni’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ni’s documentary evidence
did not otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to
rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of
credible testimony, in this case, we deny the petition for review as to Ni’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
2 20-70001
We do not address Ni’s arguments about the merits of his asylum and
withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not reach those issues. 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)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-70001