Case ID: f-appx_700/html/0707-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CUIRONG YU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-71368
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 31, 2017
    
      Cuirong Yu, Pro Se
    Todd J. Cochran, Lindsay Corliss, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cuirong Yu, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying her application 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 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 inconsistencies between Yu’s testimony and documentary evidence. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Yu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Yu’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel a finding that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to China. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, we reject Yu’s contention that the IJ was biased, because she has not demonstrated any bias. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.