NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUKAS SANJAYA LU; SHIERLY No. 15-71347
WAHYUNI LIE,
Agency Nos. A088-291-615
Petitioners, A099-884-012
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Lukas Sanjaya Lu (“Lu”) and Shierly Wahyuni Lie (“Lie”), natives and
citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
*
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).
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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, applying
the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under 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 inconsistencies in the record between Lu and Lie’s versions of what
happened during the May 1998 riot. See id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding
must be based on the totality of the circumstances); Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733,
738-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (substantial evidence review is a highly deferential
standard). Additionally, Lie’s declaration omitted significant information, such as
her husband’s purported 1998 assault and hospitalization. See Zamanov v. Holder,
649 F.3d 969, 972-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (omissions from asylum application
supported adverse credibility determination). Lie’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See id. at 974 (agency not required to accept explanations for
inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, the petitioners’ asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
2 15-71347
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT
claims because they were based on the same evidence found not credible, and
petitioners do not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048-49.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-71347