NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
YUPING SUN, No. 08-71391
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-042-187
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Yuping Sun, 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 decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created
by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency found Sun not credible because, during her hearing, she held and
referred to a typewritten copy of her declaration in support of her asylum
application, and provided inconsistent explanations for her possession of it.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See
id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real ID
Act’s “totality of the circumstances”); Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917-19
(9th Cir. 2009). In the absence of credible testimony, Sun’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
Sun has not raised any direct challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71391