NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONGJUN TANG, No. 15-73646
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-885-130
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Yongjun Tang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies within Tang’s testimony and between Tang’s testimony
and documentary evidence as to his residence in the U.S., and the dates of his
marriages and divorce, Tang’s demeanor during the hearing, and the implausibility
of Tang’s claimed fear of calling his wife. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Tang’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, in this case, Tang’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, Tang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel
the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to
2 15-73646
China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73646