Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0449-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GUIRONG MA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73742.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 21, 2016.
    Anders Laird Johnson, Trial, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guirong Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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, 1039-1040 (9th Cir.2010), We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies within Ma’s testimony and between her testimony and application as to her son’s presence in the United States, and on the IJ’s negative demeanor finding. See id. at 1048; Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.2014) (the Court gives “special deference to a credibility determination, that is based on demeanor”) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Ma’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Ma’s asylum.and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.