NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JINLIN LING,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-74334

Agency No. A089-720-940

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 15, 2016**

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Jinlin Ling, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”). We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 24 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-74334

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, 

including claims of due process violations, Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 

1017 (9th Cir. 2008), and 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.

We reject Ling’s contentions that the IJ’s violated his due process rights 

during his proceedings. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 921-22 (9th 

Cir. 2006); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to 

establish a due process claim).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on the Ling’s inconsistent accounts as to the location of his business and 

residence in China, and based on his omission from his statement of significant

incidents of harm he experienced in detention. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048

(adverse credibility determination supported under “the totality of circumstances”). 

The record does not support Ling’s contention that he omitted incidents due to 

embarrassment. See Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 

2003) (claim was based solely on counsel’s argument, which “does not constitute 

evidence”). Further, Ling’s explanations do not compel the contrary result. See 

Lata, 204 F.3d at 1245. We reject Ling’s contentions that his documentary
3 13-74334

evidence overcomes his lack of credibility, see Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 

791 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence did not rehabilitate testimony, or independently 

support petitioner’s claim), and his contention that the BIA disregarded evidence.

Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Ling’s asylum and withholding of 

removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Finally, Ling’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same 

testimony found not credible, and Ling does not point to any other evidence in the 

record that compels the conclusion it is more likely than not he would be tortured if 

returned to China. See Almaghzar, 457 F.3d at 922-23 (although reports 

confirmed torture occurred in petitioner’s country, record did not compel the 

finding that petitioner would be tortured).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.