FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUN LI, No. 11-71465
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-024-218
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jun Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ 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 8
*
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).
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 deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on discrepancies between Li’s written statement and testimony regarding
whether Li was present when the police were asked to “punish” Mr. Wang,
whether Li was a witness in court for Mr. Wang, and whether the police officers
who came to arrest him were uniformed or plain-clothed, as well as the omission
from Li’s written statement that hooligans attacked him. See id. at 1048 (the
adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances). We reject Li’s contention that the inconsistencies are minor. See
id. at 1046. The agency also did not err in giving Li’s documentary evidence
limited weight. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). In the absence of credible evidence, Li’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Li’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence
the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is
more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
2 11-71465
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-71465