FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUBIN QI, No. 09-73522
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-356-391
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Yubin Qi, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, including the agency’s adverse credibility findings. Cortez-Pineda v.
Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on discrepancies regarding the mistreatment Qi experienced during his
interrogations, evasive testimony about who made arrangements for him to leave
China, and his inability to provide detailed testimony about important subjects
such as his home church meetings and the day he was required to report weekly to
police. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2000) (inconsistencies
between testimony and application regarding injuries petitioner received during
assaults); Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1256 (9th Cir. 2003) (evasive testimony);
Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (lack of specificity). Qi’s
explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, in the absence of
credible testimony, Qi’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, Qi’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements the
agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding
2 09-73522
that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of
the government if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, in light of the agency’s supported adverse credibility finding, Qi’s
due process claim fails. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir.
2007) (even if petitioner shows IJ bias, court cannot find bias was basis for denial
of application where factual record supports denial).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-73522