Yan Liu v. Loretta E. Lynch , 635 F. App'x 382 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 3 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    YAN LIU,                                           No. 14-70038
    Petitioner,                          Agency No. A099-735-233
    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.
    Yan Liu, native and 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 and withholding of removal.
    We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
    *
    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).
    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 omission of Liu’s 2005 detention from his original asylum application
    and declaration, and his inconsistent testimony regarding the 2005 detention. See
    
    id. at 1048
    (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of
    circumstances”); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 
    649 F.3d 969
    , 973 (9th Cir. 2011)
    (“Material alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to
    support an adverse credibility finding.”). Liu’s explanations do not compel the
    contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the
    absence of credible testimony, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
    fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 
    348 F.3d 1153
    , 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   14-70038
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-70038

Citation Numbers: 635 F. App'x 382

Judges: Leavy, Fernandez, Rawlinson

Filed Date: 3/3/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024