N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B AOQING XU, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-71645 Age n c y No. A087-612-570
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 20, 2016 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TASHIM A, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. B a oqing Xu, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture



# FIL ED JAN 26 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a p ply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inations c re ate d by the RE AL ID Ac t. Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dism iss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a d

ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation ba se d on inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n Xu’ s te stim ony

and writte n a pplic ation re ga

rding whe n

he orga niz e d fe llow fa

rm e rs to c onfront theloc a l gove rnm e nt, C

orte z-Pine da v
. Holde r , 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th C ir. 2010) (c ha nge i n date of pa st ha

rm wa s m ate ria l a

nd supporte d

a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation), a

nd ba se d on Xu’ s ina

bility to providenam e s of a

ny of the othe r farm e rs with whom

he wa s arre ste d, se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1048 (a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion re a sona

ble unde r the tota lity

of c irc um sta

nc e s); se ealso J in v . Holde r , 748 F.3d 959, 966 (9th C ir. 2014) (la c k of de ta i l in te stim ony supporte d a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination). W e re

je c t Xu’ s c o nte ntion tha

t the IJ fa ile d to prope rly

c onside r his e xpla

n ations for theinc onsiste nc ie s. Se e Zamanov
v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th C ir. 2011). W e do not a ddre ss Xu’ s a rgum e nt that the IJ fa ile d

to c om ply with Re n v . Holde r

648 F.3d 1079 (9th C ir. 2011), be c a use the B IA e xpre ssly

did not re a c h the IJ’ s fa ilure to c orroborate finding. In

1 3
- 7 1 6 4 5 2the a

bse nc e of c re dible te stim ony , Xu’ s a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s fa il. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r Xu’ s C AT c la im be c a use he did not e xha

u st it be fore the B IA. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th C ir. 2004). Fina lly , we a lso la c k jurisdic tion ove r Xu’ s re que st for prose c utoria l disc re tion. Se eVilc hiz-Soto v . Holde r , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th C i r. 2012) (orde r). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3
- 7 1 6 4 5 3