NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAI SHAN HUANG, No. 13-73306
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-574-851
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Hai Shan Huang, 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 withholding of removal and protection
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Huang’s and his witness’s testimony regarding
when they met and whether Huang attended a particular Falun Gong group practice
session. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the
totality of circumstances”). Huang’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence
of credible testimony, Huang’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Huang v.
Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Huang’s CAT
claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Huang
does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that
it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or
2 13-73306
acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73306