NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUNMING SONG, No. 13-74493
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-726-579
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Yunming Song, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
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.
We do not consider the materials Song references in his opening brief that
are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determinations that Song was not
credible based on inconsistencies in his testimony and between his testimony and
documentary evidence as to where and when he lived at various addresses in
China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances). Song’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We
reject, as unsupported by the record, his contention that the BIA denied his claim
for lack of corroboration, and thus deny his contention that the BIA violated his
due process rights, see id. at 1246 (explaining that a petitioner must show error to
prevail on a due process claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this
2 13-74493
case, Song’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74493