FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINGRU LIU, No. 13-71627
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-887-401
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jingru Liu, 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 and withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
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 agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Liu’s testimony and the record regarding the
dates of his employment and the omission of a six month hospitalization from his
declaration. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the “totality of circumstances”); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969,
973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding adverse credibility finding based on
inconsistencies and omission). The agency reasonably rejected Liu’s explanations.
See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Don v.
Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007) (IJ “did not abuse his discretion by
failing to interpret the evidence in the manner advocated by [the petitioner]”). In
the absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition as to Liu’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71627