FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUI LIU, No. 12-73903
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-900-347
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Hui Liu, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection 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 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on an inconsistency between Liu’s testimony and visa documents regarding
the chronology of his alleged arrests and use of a false story to obtain a visa, and
based on his unresponsiveness when confronted with the inconsistency. See id. at
1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances”). We reject Liu’s contention that the agency failed to give proper
weight to his documentary evidence, see Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2014) (documents not sufficient to rehabilitate testimony). Further, the record
does not support Liu’s contention that the IJ exhibited bias. Thus, in the absence
of credible testimony, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Liu’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the
agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that
2 12-73903
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73903