NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XUNSE HAN, No. 14-73636
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-473-728
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Xunse Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
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). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Han’s testimony, declaration, and statements
made during her asylum interview as to how many home church gatherings she
attended in China, and her internally inconsistent testimony as to the length of her
interrogation in detention. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances).
In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Han’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Han’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Han does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. See id.
at 1156-57.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to remand in light
of the evidence Han submitted on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Romero-
2 14-73636
Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The BIA abuses its
discretion if its decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73636