FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAJIE LIU, No. 10-73437
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-364-378
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Yajie Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the new 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 review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS,
210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Liu testified that she was arrested and fired from her job for preaching the
gospel to patients at the hospital of Chinese medicine where she was a doctor.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Liu’s claim that she is a doctor of Chinese medicine was inconsistent with
her household register, which indicated she is an engineer, and the agency
reasonably rejected her explanations for the inconsistency. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d
at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID
Act’s “totality of the circumstances”); Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275
(9th Cir. 2007) (upholding agency finding that explanations were insufficient). In
the absence of credible testimony, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Liu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and she does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely
than not she would be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. See
2 10-73437
id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we reject Liu’s contention that the agency denied her a full and fair
hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for
a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-73437