NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUNAI JIN, No. 14-73228
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-392-468
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.
Chunai Jin, 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 relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
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 Jin not credible based on
inconsistencies within her testimony as to when she hid North Korean refugees
and, relatedly, when the Communist Party denied her husband membership in the
party. The agency also found Jin not credible based on an inconsistency between
her testimony and documentary evidence as to whether she was arrested in China.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based
on these findings. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Jin’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, Jin’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Jin’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and Jin does not point to any evidence that compels
2 14-73228
the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to
China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73228
Chunai Jin v. Loretta E. Lynch
Combined Opinion