FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XU LI, No. 13-73379
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-705-814
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Xu Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Li’s testimony and his household registry and his
unresponsiveness when confronted with those inconsistencies. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of
the circumstances”). Li’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject Li’s contention that his
documentary evidence overcomes the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (corroboration documents not
sufficient to rehabilitate testimony). In the absence of credible testimony, Li’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73379