NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FENGXIA LAI,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72323 Agency No. A200

- 803

- 595

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 17, 2019 ** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON, *** District Judge. Fengxia Lai , a native and citizen of the People’s Rep ublic of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)

.

*** The Honorable Joseph F . Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 72323

her appeal from the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. To qualify for asylum, an applicant must show past persecution or a well

founded fear of future persecution. Al

- Harbi v. INS , 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001)

. To qualify fo r withholding , an applicant must show that “it is more likely than not that [s]he would be subject to persecution” because of a protected ground

. Id

. (quoting INS v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 429

– 30 (1984) ). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination and its resulting conclusion that Lai failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. In arriving at an adverse credibility determination, the IJ
relied on inconsistencies in Lai’s statements about her alleged attempt to participate
in religious and church activities , her arrest and detention by the police, and her ownership and management of a furniture store

. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

– 40 (9 th Cir. 2010) (IJ must consider “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors”, including, “demeanor, candor, responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant or witness’s account, consistency between the applicant o r witness’s written and oral statements ..., internal consistency of each statement, and consistency of statements with other
evidence

.. .” ) (alterations in original) ( citing Pub. L. No. 109

– 13, Div. B, §§3 16

- 72323

101(a)(3), 101(c), 101(d), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (2005) ( codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (asylum); 1231(b)(3)(C) (adopting the standard in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) for withholding of removal); 1229a(c)(4)(C) (all other relief)) ) ; Manes v. Sessions , 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating that cou rts “afford a healthy measure of deference to agency credibility determinations,” because IJs are able “to assess demeanor and other credibility cues”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent Lai’s discredited testimony, no evidence before the IJ estab lished that she faced persecution for her religious activities , n or did Lai present any
evidence , other than her testimony, of past persecution on account of her religious
beliefs

. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Lai lacked credibilit y. 2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. An applicant for CAT relief must show that “it is more likely than not” that she “would be
tortured.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)

. Lai’s testimony was not credible, and the country report s he submitted did not compel the conclusion that she would be
tortured if she returned to China. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 740

– 41 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.