NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIXIN TANG, No. 18-71191
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-181-359
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Lixin Tang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
*
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).
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). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on internal inconsistencies in Tang’s testimony and inconsistencies between
his testimony and documentary evidence. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Tang’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that
Tang’s documentary evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2014). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Tang’s asylum
and withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Tang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony that
the agency found not credible, and Tang does not point to any other evidence that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See
Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 18-71191