Qiang He v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 586 F. App'x 323 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 2 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIANG HE, No. 12-73065
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-474-845
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Qiang He, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 de novo conclusions of law and for substantial
evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
regarding allegations of past harm based on the finding that petitioner omitted from
his original asylum application the most severe aspect of his claimed persecution in
China, and that his explanation for the omission was implausible in light of his
subsequent actions. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011).
In the absence of credible testimony, petitioner’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims based on his alleged past persecution fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Additionally, petitioner has otherwise failed to establish a basis for asylum
or withholding of removal. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the BIA correctly
concluded that petitioner had conceded that his newfound Jehovah’s Witness faith
did not support a well-founded fear of persecution in China. Furthermore, the
record does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of
persecution of underground Christians in China. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-
62.
2 12-73065
Finally, with respect to CAT relief, petitioner does not challenge the
agency’s conclusion that there is no evidence of past torture. Furthermore,
substantial evidence supports the finding that even if petitioner had credibly
testified, he failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
if returned to China. See id. at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73065