Case ID: f-appx_432/html/0667-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GANG TIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70564.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 6, 2011.
    Gang Tian, Rosemead, CA, pro se.
    Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gang Tian, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Tian’s testimony about his duties and activities as a police officer was materially inconsistent with his declaration. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Tian failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Tian’s contention that the IJ failed to address his CAT claim is not supported by the record. Because Tian’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible and he points to no further evidence to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.

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