Cuirong Yu v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CUIRONG YU, No. 16-71368 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-724-080 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Cuirong Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). 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). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Yu’s testimony and documentary evidence. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Yu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Yu’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel a finding that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to China. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, we reject Yu’s contention that the IJ was biased, because she has not demonstrated any bias. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2007). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-71368 16-71368 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Cuirong Yu v. Jefferson Sessions 31 October 2017 Agency Unpublished e8910200c5e2602edce118436ad4a42e17d6833b

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals