Li Xiao v. Loretta E. Lynch , 637 F. App'x 452 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LI XIAO, No. 13-73304
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-862-993
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Li Xiao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by 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 agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the IJ’s demeanor finding, as well as the omission from Xiao’s written
application of the injuries he suffered from beatings by the police or the car
accident that served as a motivation for his adoption of Christianity. See id. at
1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances”). Xiao’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible
testimony, Xiao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Xiao’s
CAT claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the
record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Xiao
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
2 13-73304
returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73304