NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZHENMING LIU, No. 14-71414 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-882-127 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. Zhenming Liu, a native and citizen of People’s Republic 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 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). 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 Liu’s testimony, asylum application, and record evidence as to when Liu began working at the dye factory and how long he received unemployment benefits after he was laid off. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Liu’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony in this case, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Liu’s CAT claim also fails because it rests on the same testimony that the agency found not credible, and Liu points to no other evidence showing that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71414 14-71414 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Zhenming Liu v. William Barr 13 June 2019 Agency Unpublished 79bdabddce93d558d5f2c16493aa5e9b2af59132
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals