Jianhua Yan v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANHUA YAN, No. 14-73514
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-966-852
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jianhua Yan, 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
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 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).
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 inconsistencies as to who owned the house that was allegedly
demolished, and when or whether it was demolished at all. See id. at 1048
(adverse credibility finding reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). We
reject Yan’s contention that he did not have an adequate opportunity to explain,
and his contention that the BIA did not consider his explanation. See Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony, in
this case, Yan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Yan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Yan does not point to any other evidence that
compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73514