FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIN NING LIN and XIAO WEI LIN, No. 11-72669
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A076-210-240
A076-210-239
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Min Ning Lin (“Lin”) and Xiao Wei Lin, natives and citizens of China, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for
*
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).
asylum and withholding of removal. 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based
on an inconsistency between Lin’s testimony that she got divorced in the year 2000
and a household registry indicating that she was married as of 2009. See id. at 1048
(adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). The
BIA was not required to accept Lin’s explanations for this inconsistency. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Because a reasonable
adjudicator would not be “compelled to conclude” that Lin is credible, 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)(B), we uphold the agency’s adverse credibility determination. In the
absence of credible testimony, Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). As a derivative
petitioner, Xiao Wei Lin’s claims fail with Lin’s. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738,
739 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION DENIED.
2