NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AIPING HAN, No. 14-71401
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-836-090
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Aiping Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying her 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
*
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).
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 the problems the agency identified as to Han’s vague and implausible
testimony regarding the whereabouts of her husband after he allegedly escaped
arrest, and his whereabouts and activities since Han’s arrival in the United States.
See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
“totality of circumstances”). Han’s explanations do not compel a contrary result.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible
testimony, Han’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, even if Han’s testimony was credible, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s finding that Han failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Han’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible and the record does
not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Han would be
2 14-71401
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71401