Min You v. Loretta E. Lynch , 642 F. App'x 790 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIN YOU, No. 13-74429
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-252-962
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Min You, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
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).
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
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), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency found You not credible on several grounds, including You’s
omission from his asylum application statement that he was badly beaten in
detention, and an inconsistency as to the timeframe of his wife’s
abortion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under
“the totality of circumstances”). You’s explanations do not compel a contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, You’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of You’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and the record does
not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not You would be
2 13-74429
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74429