FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SENG HONG LIM, No. 10-70103
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-296-390
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 4, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT and CLIFTON, Circuit
Judges.
Seng Hong Lim, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of
the BIA’s order affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and corresponding
denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture. We deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
We review the BIA’s decision affirming an adverse credibility determination
for substantial evidence. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011). “The
court must uphold the BIA’s findings unless the evidence presented would compel
a reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result.” Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d
1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original). This is a pre-REAL ID Act
case. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011).
Here, numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities substantially support the
adverse credibility finding. For example, Lim testified that he did not know about
CFF’s plans for violent revolution even though he had heard a rumor that CFF was
going to liberate Cambodia through conflict, and he referred in his asylum
application to documents related to CFF’s “revolution to overthrow” the current
government that were found in his home when it was searched by the authorities.
Lim’s argument that the terms “revolution” and “overthrow” do not necessarily
connote violence in the context of this case is unavailing, as the IJ was permitted to
find otherwise. See Leon-Hernandez v. INS, 926 F.2d 902, 904 (9th Cir. 1991)
(explaining that “the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the
evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported
by substantial evidence”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In any
case, the record is replete with other inconsistencies and implausibilities, which go
2
to the heart of his asylum petition, i.e., his membership in CFF. Accordingly, the
adverse credibility finding and denial of asylum must be upheld. See Pal v. INS,
204 F.3d 935, 938-40 (9th Cir. 2000).
Petitioner’s withholding of removal and CAT claims rely on the same
statements that the IJ found to lack credibility. The denial of these claims thus must
also be upheld. Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003)
(explaining that a petitioner who fails to meet the less stringent standard for asylum
necessarily also fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal); Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that
where a petitioner’s CAT claims are based on the same statements as the asylum
claim, “because we affirm the BIA’s determination that [petitioner] and his
witnesses were not credible, we must similarly affirm the rejection of [petitioner’s]
claim under the Convention Against Torture”).
PETITION DENIED.
3