FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 22 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHUAI SU, No. 13-71990
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-996-440
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 20, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** Senior
District Judge.
Petitioner Shuai Su is a native and citizen of China. He entered the United
States on a student visa but failed to attend college as required by the terms of the
visa. Having been served with a Notice to Appear, Petitioner conceded
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Petitioner claimed that Chinese authorities
detained and beat him because he objected to the compensation offered by the
government when it evicted his family from their home. The immigration judge
("IJ") found that Petitioner was not credible and denied relief. The Board of
Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed. Reviewing for substantial evidence,
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny the petition.
1. The REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), applies to the IJ’s
credibility assessment, which the BIA upheld. Many of the inconsistencies
identified by the IJ, and upheld by the BIA, are supported by substantial evidence.
(a) For example, Petitioner testified that the government notice provided
that homeowners would be paid 800 RMB per square meter for their dwellings, but
he then testified, to the contrary, that the notice explained that payments would be
based on each home’s purchase price and did not list a compensation amount.
(b) With respect to injuries allegedly sustained in the police beating,
Petitioner testified to a wound over his left eye, but the medical record that he
submitted identified his right eye as the one that was injured. And the IJ
permissibly found that the medical record itself was problematic; Petitioner
claimed to have been admitted to the hospital, while the record was for outpatient
care.
2
The agency was not required to credit Petitioner’s explanations for these
(and other) inconsistencies.
2. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for asylum. 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(a). Because the adverse credibility finding is supported by
substantial evidence, the IJ and the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner failed
to show that he had suffered past persecution.
3. For the same reason, the agency permissibly ruled that Petitioner did not
qualify for withholding of removal, because he failed to show that he more likely
than not would be persecuted on a protected ground if returned to China. This
standard is more stringent than the standard governing asylum. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
4. Finally, the finding by the IJ, upheld by the BIA, that Petitioner would
not likely face torture if returned to China, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(4), is supported by
substantial evidence. As noted, Petitioner’s testimony was permissibly found not
credible. The remaining evidence, a country conditions report, does not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1049 (denying a CAT claim in
similar circumstances).
Petition DENIED.
3