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

e sponde nt . No. 13-71990 Age n c y No. A200-996-440
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 July 20, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, *** Se n ior Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Shua i Su is a

native and c itiz e n of C hina
. He e nte re d the Unite d Stat e s on a

stude nt visa

but fa ile d to a

tte nd c olle ge a s re quire d by the te rm s of the visa . Ha ving be e n se rve d with a

Notic e to Appe ar, Pe titione r c onc e de d 

# FIL ED JUL 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation 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 tha

t this c a se is suita

b le for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

b le Je d S. R a

koff, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa t ion.re m ova

bility but sought a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(" C AT" ). Pe t itione r c la i m e d tha t C hine se a

uthoritie s de ta ine d a

nd be at him

be c a use he obje c te d to thec om pe n sation offe re d by

the gove rnm e nt whe n it e vic te d his fa m ily from the i r hom e . The im

m igration judge (" IJ" ) found tha

t Pe t itione r wa s not c re d ible and de nie d re lie f. The B o ard of Im m i gration Appe a l s (" B IA" ) a ffirm e d. R e vie wing for substa ntia l e vide nc e , Shre stha v. Holde r, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010), wede ny the pe tition. 1. The REAL ID Ac t, 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii), a pplie s to theIJ’ s c re d ibility

a sse ssm e nt, whic h the B IA uphe ld. M a ny of the inc onsiste nc ie s ide ntifie d by

the IJ, a nd uphe ld by

the B IA, are supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e . (a ) For e xam

ple , Pe titione r te stifie d tha t the gove rnm e nt notic e provide d that hom e owne rs would bepa id 800 R M B pe r squa

re m e te r for the ir dwe llings, but he the n te stifie d, to thec ontra ry , tha t the notic e e xpla ine d tha

t pa ym e nts would be ba se d on e a c h hom e ’ s purc ha se pric e and did not list a c om p e n sat ion a

m ount. (b) W i th re spe c t to injurie s a lle ge d l y susta ine d in thepolic e be ating, Pe titione r te stifie d to a

wound ove r his le ft e y e , but them e dic a l re c o rd tha t he subm itte d ide ntifie d his right ey e a s the one tha t wa s injure d. And theIJ pe rm issibly

found tha

t the m e dic a l re c ord itse lf wa s proble m atic ; Pe titione r c la im e d to ha

ve be e n a dm itte d to the hospita l, whilethe re c ord wa s for outpa tie nt
c are . 2The a ge n c y wa s not re quire d to c re dit Pe titione r’ s e xpla nations for the se (and othe r) inc onsiste nc ie s. 2. Pe titione r be ars the burde n of e sta blishing e ligibility

for a s y lum . 8 C .F.R . § 208.13(a). B e c a use the a dve rse c re dibility finding is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , the IJ a

nd the B IA did not e rr in finding tha t Pe titione r fa ile d to show tha

t he ha d suffe re d pa st pe rse c ution. 3. For the sa

m e re a son, thea ge nc y

pe rm issibly

rule d tha t Pe titione r did not qua lify for withholding of rem ova l, be c a use he fa ile d to show tha

t he m ore like ly tha n not would be pe rse c ute d on a prote c te d ground if re t

urne d to C h ina . This sta nda rd is m ore stringe nt tha

n the sta nda rd gove rning a sy lum . Ze haty e v. Gonz a le s, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006). 4. Fina lly , the finding by the IJ, uphe ld by the B IA, tha t Pe titione r would not like ly fa c e torture if re turne d to C hina , 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(4), is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . As note d, Pe titione r’ s te stim ony wa s pe rm issibly

found not
c re d ible
. The re m a ining e vide nc e , a c ountry c onditions re

port, doe s not c om

pe l a
c ontra ry c onc lusion. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a t 1049 (de ny ing a

C A T c l a im

in sim ila r c irc um s ta

nc e s ). Pe tition DE N IE D.

3