FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIAN LIU, No. 12-70947
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-036-393
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jian Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
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 in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the significant inconsistency between Liu’s testimony and written
statement regarding the events leading up to the pregnancy he claims his wife was
forced to abort. See id. at 1046-47 (under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the
circumstances” standard, inconsistency supported adverse credibility
determination). Liu failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the
inconsistency. See id. at 1044. 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).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Liu’s claim for relief under the
Convention Against Torture because he did not appeal the IJ’s denial of relief to
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court
lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-70947