NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANG CAO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70549 

Agency No. A087-874-281 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Yang Cao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration 

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

* 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).

FILED

DEC 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-70549 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial 

evidence, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations 

under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 

2010). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on 

inconsistencies between Cao’s testimony and the documentary evidence 

concerning her parents’ place of residence, Cao’s employment, and the length of 

her detention; and based on Cao’s demeanor. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility 

determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Manes v. 

Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017) (IJ made “explicit reference to 

particular unrecorded aspects of demeanor” which is sufficient to provide “specific 

examples” of demeanor as required). Cao’s contentions that she was denied an 

opportunity to explain any discrepancies fail, see Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 

1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (opportunity to explain may be provided through direct 

examination), and her explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion, see 

Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ not required to accept 

explanations for inconsistencies). Substantial evidence also supports the finding 

that Cao did not present corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish her

eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) 
3 19-70549 

(petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support 

claim).

In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Cao’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 

(9th Cir. 2003). 

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Cao’s CAT claim

because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Cao does not 

point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more 

likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the 

government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Cao’s remaining contentions 

regarding the merits of her asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to 

decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.