NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZEWEN GUO, No. 19-72473
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-185-065
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Zewen Guo, 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, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial
evidence, 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 adverse credibility determination based on
Guo’s lack of corroborating evidence and omissions regarding the police’s
continued search for Guo and the police’s beating of other house church members.
See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
circumstances”); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 926, 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”). Guo’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Li v.
Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (agency not compelled to accept
explanations for discrepancies). Substantial evidence also supports the finding that
Guo did not present sufficient evidence that would independently establish his
eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014)
(petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support
claim).
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
2 19-72473
(9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Guo’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Guo does not
point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more
likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. We do not
consider the materials Guo references in his 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).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Guo’s remaining contentions
regarding the merits of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to
decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-72473