NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 2 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUI LIN, No. 15-70705
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-114-553
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Hui Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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”).
*
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).
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.
The agency’s adverse credibility determination in this case is supported by
substantial evidence, including the inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and his
declaration concerning the government’s responses to his children’s births, and his
internally inconsistent testimony concerning the factory that he claims was
destroyed. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 739 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]o overturn
an IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we must find that ‘the evidence not only
supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it.’” (second alteration in original)
(quoting Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011))). In the absence of
credible testimony, Lin’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Lin’s claim for
CAT protection because it was based on the same evidence that the agency found
not credible, and Lin does not point to other evidence in the record 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 Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048-49.
2 15-70705
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70705