NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YU ZHU CHU, No. 13-70143
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-367-795
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 NR SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yu Zhu Chu, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
*
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).
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 agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies relating to how Chu got a passport and his address.
See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
“totality of circumstances”). Chu’s explanations do not compel a contrary result.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In light of our conclusions,
we do not reach Chu’s contention regarding corroborative evidence. In the
absence of credible testimony, Chu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Chu’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
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).
2 13-70143
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70143