NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BAOJIN CUI, No. 12-72540
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-604-891
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Baojin Cui, 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 decision denying his 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 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.
With respect to Cui’s claims for relief based on religion, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on significant
omissions from Cui’s testimony of details regarding his reasons for fearing a return
to China. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011); Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard). We reject Cui’s
contentions that the agency relied on conjecture and inadequately explained its
reasoning. In the absence of credible testimony, Cui’s claims for asylum and
withholding of removal based on religion fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
With respect to Cui’s claims for relief based on China’s coercive population
control policy, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cui
failed to demonstrate resistance to the policy. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B);
Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner “must provide
evidence of resistance” in order to qualify for asylum based on spouse’s forced
2 12-72540
abortion). Accordingly, Cui’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal based
on China’s population control policy fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Cui failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
removed to China. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72540