NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 h er appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying h er 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 APPEALS2 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 r eview.

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 s he was denied an

opport unity 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 h er 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 Ca o did not present corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish h er
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 doe s not
point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more

likely than not s he 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

.