NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAN FU, No. 16-71602
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-210-550
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Yan Fu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
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 Fu’s testimony and documentary evidence as to
when she decided to leave China, why her pastor in the United States was
unavailable to provide testimony, and where she lived in the United States, and the
IJ’s demeanor finding. See id., 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”); see also Huang v.
Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The need for deference is
particularly strong in the context of demeanor assessments.”). Further, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Fu’s corroborative evidence does not
independently support her claim for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2014). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Fu’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Fu’s contentions regarding the
merits of her claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-71602