NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDI LI, No. 13-74304
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-057-044
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.
Sandi 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies as to whether Li’s family continued attending an
unregistered church after his arrest, and on inconsistencies as to the issuance of a
letter from Li’s pastor in China and Li’s notarial certificate of his birth. See id. at
1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances”). Li’s explanations for these inconsistencies do not compel a
contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 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).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Li’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 Li would be
tortured if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-74304