FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QINGHE LUO, No. 12-73968
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-458-378
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Qinghe Luo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,
1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Luo’s shifting testimony regarding his occupation in China. See Singh-
Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Kaur v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (inconsistencies and other indications of
dishonesty may deprive a claim of requisite “ring of truth”). Substantial evidence
also supports the BIA’s implausibility finding. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d
738, 743 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding agency’s finding that testimony was
implausible in light of background evidence). Further, the agency was not
compelled to accept Luo’s explanations. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969,
974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony, Luo’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Luo’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found
not credible and Luo does not point to any other evidence in the record to show it
is more likely than not he would be tortured in China, his CAT claim fails. See id.
at 1156-57.
2 12-73968
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73968