FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAIXIONG JIN, No. 12-74216
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-475-630
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: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
On January 21, 2015, the court granted the government’s unopposed motion
to stay proceedings. On March 11, 2015, the government informed the court that
Haixiong Jin, a native and citizen of China, is not a candidate for prosecutorial
*
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).
discretion, and requested that this case move forward. The stay of proceedings is
hereby lifted.
Jin 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 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.
Even if Jin’s asylum claim was timely, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination based on an inconsistency between Jin’s
testimony and his documentary evidence regarding his level of education, and
based on Jin’s inability to explain the visas in his Chinese passport. See id. at 1048
(adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances); see also Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“inconsistencies between testimonial and documentary evidence [are] a proper
basis for an adverse credibility finding”). We reject Jin’s contention that the IJ
engaged in speculation, and his contention that the IJ did not consider his
2 12-74216
explanations. Further, Jin’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible
testimony, Jin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Jin’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Jin does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-74216