FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIJUN SUN, No. 12-72543
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-022-283
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Lijun Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
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 (9th Cir.
2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on its findings regarding Sun’s demeanor and responsiveness and based on
Sun’s inability to provide details regarding his church attendance in the United
States. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable
under totality of circumstances, including based on unresponsive and undetailed
testimony); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (giving special
deference to IJ’s observation of petitioner’s demeanor). In light of this conclusion,
we reject Sun’s contentions that the agency did not give adequate weight to
evidence of country conditions and erred in failing to address his claim of a pattern
or practice of persecution. Accordingly, Sun’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Sun failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
2 12-72543
returned to China. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
We reject Sun’s contention that the agency improperly evaluated his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72543