FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XI YANG, No. 11-73504
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-496-937
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Xi Yang, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse
credibility findings, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and we
deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on Yang’s inability to remember when he traveled to
Singapore, or whether he traveled outside of China on other occasions. See Wang
v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003) (“So long as one of the identified
grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [petitioner’s]
claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the [adverse] credibility finding.”).
Yang’s explanations, including memory failure, do not compel a contrary result.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible
testimony, Yang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Aschcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, Yang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
statements found not credible, and he points to no other evidence in the record
showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the Chinese government. See id. at 1156-57. We do not address
Yang’s contentions regarding the IJ’s CAT analysis. See Corpuz v. Holder, 697
2 11-73504
F.3d 807, 810 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Where as here, the BIA has conducted a de novo
review of the IJ’s decision, we review only the decision of the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73504