FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIANYU HONG, No. 12-71350
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-806-334
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.
Xianyu Hong, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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), and we review de novo claims of due process
violations, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition
for review.
With respect to Hong’s family planning claim, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s determination that Hong failed to carry her evidentiary burden of
proof. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2011). With respect to
Hong’s religion claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination based on Hong’s inconsistent testimony regarding when
she began attending church and was baptized. See Shrestha, 590 F.ed at 1045-48
(adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s
“totality of circumstances”). Hong’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, Hong’s asylum claim fails.
Because she failed to establish eligibility for asylum, Hong necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Ren, 648 F.3d
at 1094 n.17; Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 12-71350
Further, Hong’s CAT claim also fails because she has not established that it
is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to China. See Ren,
648 F.3d at 1094 n.17.
Finally, we reject Hong’s contentions that the IJ violated her due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-71350