NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHAO LI, No. 14-70015
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-977-003
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Jr., 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.
Chao Li, a native and 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
*
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).
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), and we deny the petition for review.
Among other things, the agency found Li not credible based on the lack of
detail in Li’s testimony, the inconsistencies with his declaration, and the omission
from his declaration of a month-long hospital stay. Substantial evidence supports
the adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Thus, we
deny the petition for review as to Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.
See id.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Li’s CAT claim
because it is based on the same testimony found not credible, and he does not point
to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if returned to China. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). We reject Li’s contentions that that the agency erred in
its analysis of his CAT claim and that the agency failed to consider record
evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-70015