FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEBING YE, No. 13-70076
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-628-457
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Debing Ye, 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
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). Thus, we reject Ye’s request
for oral argument.
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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Ye’s testimony and household registration
regarding when and why his wife’s registration was cancelled, and based on the
implausibility that Ye and his wife would leave their children in China despite a
loan shark’s threats to kill Ye’s wife and children, when Ye testified the reason his
wife fled China was because of these threats. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the
circumstances” standard); see also Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1337-38 (9th Cir.
2013) (adverse credibility finding supported in part by implausible testimony). In
the absence of credible testimony, Ye’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Ye’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
2 13-70076
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70076