FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 12 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AIPING TONG, No. 12-70554
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-996-824
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, NELSON, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Aiping Tong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
We review adverse credibility determinations under the substantial evidence
standard. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based
on, among other things, inconsistencies in Tong's testimony regarding the alleged
incident giving rise to her asylum claim, discrepancies in Tong's testimony
regarding an earlier forced abortion that she omitted from her asylum application
and asylum interview, and Tong's failure to adequately explain her use of an alias.
See id. at 1046-48 (inconsistency regarding underlying events supported adverse
credibility determination under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”
standard); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011)
(adverse credibility finding was supported where petitioner omitted material
incidents from asylum application).
Because we affirm the BIA's determination that Tong failed to establish
eligibility for asylum, we affirm the denial of Tong’s application for withholding
of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Tong’s claim under
CAT, because Tong failed to present any evidence beyond the testimony deemed
2
not credible to establish that it was “more likely than not that [she] . . . would be
tortured if removed.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048.
PETITION DENIED.
3